Project Freedom is escorting ships out of Hormuz right? Didn't we just get news yesterday of a ship being hit by a projectile from an "unknown source"?
So they figured ships can still be shot at even if you surround them with escorts, huh?
Geniuses, these guys.
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean.
You're saying that if the creator of the sticker wanted to be recognized or was concerned about others making use of his design without his approval, he'd have signed it or added his username? That isn't necessary, you still own the rights to a work you made even if you don't sign it - including the right to give it away and allow free use, but that's a right that needs to be exercised.
For example, Linux source code is free, for any use (as per the GPL). The name "Linux", however, is a trademark, registered by Linus in the US and other places, and it's usage is protected (the Linux foundation has a page about it).
I don't think anyone's gonna be mad about stickers, the point I was trying to make was about what FOSS means in the context of Linux and software in general, but also how it relates to other forms of intellectual property protection.
That's unrelated to OPs point that because Linux is FOSS, so is the drawing. As an advocate for open source, I try to clear up this kind of confusion.
The fact that the Linux source code license is open doesn't give permission to another work about Linux.
An analogy would be a park - you can use it, go running, etc with no issues. But if you setup your easel and make a painting of the park, that painting is an original creative work, and it is protected under copyright laws.
The same for that sticker. Even with the image of Tux being made "free" (attribution) by its creator, this stylized combination of drawing and text is still copyrighted, so we'd have to ask their permission for the stickers.
A perfect summary of Epstein's role.
Of course he'd then film you and use that to twist your arm for infinity.
I hissed.
(That was genuinely funny, thanks for the chuckle)
When contracting a service, usually there are clauses that specify that it needs to be fully working and available x% of time, and compensation may be due in case this goal isn't met.
Let's say GitHub was down for 1 full day in the last year, that's 99.7% availability. That's "2 nines", but sometimes people might say "2 nines five", meaning "better than 99.5% uptime".
I'd say that the expectation for a high availability service nowadays is "5 nines": 99.999% uptime. That's around 5 minutes of downtime in a full year. This kind of performance from a site like GitHub is just unacceptable...
You're wrong. Driverless vehicles are safer, according to all data I've seen.
Here's one such example:
Of 2,052 AV incidents reported to the NHTSA, autonomous vehicles were solely at fault for only 4% of accidents that involved other road users.
The vast majority of AV-caused injuries involve animals; only 14 human injuries have resulted from the 234 incidents where an AV was at fault. There have been zero human fatalities caused by an AV from 2021-2025.
System malfunctions aren’t common; hardware or software failures accounted for 7.8% of incidents where the autonomous vehicle was found to be at fault.
I'm happy to stand corrected if there's data that points otherwise, but I'd rather stick to facts.
Your dynamic approach to typing offends me.
Ah, but that's jail time if they prove it.
Care, that birth control won't work without the missing string.
I'm not a fan of white skirts but that one I'd try...
But even then, the oil billionaires are the ones making bank, good old broke Joe is the one spending his last cents at the pump so he can get to work...