If it's not strictly non-commercial then you have to publish your fill name and home address prominently on it. You can't say anything insulting about anyone, even if true. And you can't criticize what Israel did because it's considered antisemitism.
> If it's not strictly non-commercial then you have to publish your fill name and home address prominently on it.
Under German law, as far as I understand this is true for publications "addressed to a German audience" regardless of your domain's TLD, your server location etc.
>People here know the difference or are easily able to understand it if they haven't been confronted with it.
No. They're trying to force a definition of open-source that does not exist to make it FOSS because FOSS people want everything to be FOSS so try to pressure people into it.
The definition is defined by dictionaries and it's different from what is said on here. Quite simply, they're wrong. They want it to mean one thing however the definition of the word by Oxford and Webster applies to what is done in that repo. It is open-source by the definition of the word by people who define and clarify words and not by FOSS devs who want everything to be FOSS. It is open-source! And the fact, people on here don't know that shows people on here don't know the difference.
People who develop software have to understand what "open source" means (technically, not just some sloppy interpretation), because using a non-open-source package in an otherwise open source project can contaminate the whole thing. License violations can pose high risks, both financial and reputation losses.
Because of that, a lot of effort goes into helping make sure that software stacks are using consistent licenses. There's a whole industry of standards, audit processes, software and companies to help with this; for example, see:
People who develop software have to understand the difference between FOSS and Open-Source. We already have a term for what you want to describe as open-source, it's called FOSS.
Words have meanings they're collected and recorded in dictionaries, these are the source of truth for the definition of words. It's important that we have them so we can all talk and know what we mean. This is at the very core of languages.
This open source has to be FOSS is some straight-up bullshit by people who spend all their time in the FOSS community.
By every definition other than the FOSS community, this is open source. That is a fact.
Btw: FOSS means Free and Open Source Software. Even the FOSS community fundamentally says that open source does not neet to be free.
No, it's not. Please read number 5, it might enlighten you to what people colloquially consider open source, which didn't have a dictionary definition until technical people started using this definition: https://opensource.org/osd
>And the fact, people on here don't know that shows people on here don't know the difference.
The whole idea is that we need a definition that everyone agrees With. The OSD is what the software community at large agreed, so any licences that claim to be open-source are compared to that.
Added to that, creatine could influence how close you feel to failure.
I'd like to see some data, for participants training until failure. That would still be somewhat subjective, but i'd argue, less so.
"In trained athletes, creatine has been reported to reduce body fat and improve some measures of anaerobic exercise performance, strength, and power output."
The same link.
"improve strength, and power output" -> ability to train harder -> more muscle growth to put it simply.
Signal claims to be a private, not anynomous, chat application.
Theirt defaults are set so they can get mass market addoption, whilst beeing a big step up in privacy compared to the usual players in the space (like whatsapp and telegram). You simply won't be able to get the average user on apps that make use more complicated and apps like simplex doe exactly that.
If you want Signal to be more secure, you can circumvent this attack vector by disableing auto downloads for media.
I'm not saying Signal is perfect, there has been a bunch to critisize over the years.
But why argue about use cases they never claimed to solve?
Code comments are also far from good. They have the same issue as duplicatet code. Comment and code age indiviually. Now you have to maintain both and it's for them to diverge.
Git commits are a snapshot of the codebase. Commit messages in them are pinned to a code version. Comments in commit messages are therefore always tied to the right version of code.
