They give the example of Tailwind CSS, who sell UI blocks/kits and templates. I think that sounds like more added value than just pay me to help you use my software.

This is already happening. Last month, Tailwinds—an open source CSS framework that helps people build websites—laid off three of its four engineers. Tailwinds is extremely popular, more popular than it’s ever been, but revenue has plunged.

Tailwinds head Adam Wathan explained why in a post on GitHub. “Traffic to our docs is down about 40% from early 2023 despite Tailwind being more popular than ever,” he said. “The docs are the only way people find out about our commercial products, and without customers we can’t afford to maintain the framework.

Even for projects that don’t advertise commercial products, I can believe that not needing to leave the chat/IDE to do anything leads to less traffic on GitHub etc, which is where the donate buttons are for ex.

Yes absolutely, thanks for the explanation. As another comment said, this is really nicely written and I should’ve said it earlier - and it’s on this kind of text that I get reminded that there is a gap between a good level of English and native level :)

I get some of the references and can search online for the rest, but what mainly gets me confused is that I was expecting a more detailed reasoning/explanation of how they became “radicalized” - or what that means for them. I get an nice feeling of what OP has gone through, but I only understand in a very vague manner what justifies it. Thinking about it it’s probably intentional, I just didn’t read it with the right mindset.

Fun fact, I got the lemons thanks to my economics course.

After “College was paid for…” I can’t really follow either, although I understand most of the sentences I don’t really get the narrative… or some fancy deliberate emphasis on the change in OP’s life at that point hmm

+1 for only one pair of socks and spacious shoes/boots, I was told like OP noticed that sock layers don’t work for feet and you should instead rely on having a layer of air as thermal insulation.

Also, if you want a temporary source of heat there are small pouches that you can pop in hot water for a few minutes and that will stay hot for 5-10h, the ones I used were single use but I believe reusable ones exist. They rely on an exothermic reaction instead of batteries.

Do you have more details about that?

Hm yes sorry simplistic analogies like this are always hard to reason about. In real life, the verdict would depend on the laws of your country, if self defence was proportionate, etc. Also, if you focus only on your personal gain, it makes sense to kill your mugger.

However, that’s not what I had in mind when writing it: I hope that I’m not the only thinking that killing someone who wants to mug you, even by force, is bloody absurd and should be avoided at all costs ? Both because one might not feel good about what they did, even if it was to avoid injury or losing money, and because this mechanic feels very unsustainable, to say the least, on the scale of a society.

Idk if this analogy makes more sense now; of course if you don’t share my opinion on this it becomes a pretty bad analogy. Maybe a better one would be wondering why most countries have abolished the death penalty (punishment is proportionate to crime, except when we decide there’s a baseline that we won’t cross for punishing some crimes that go below said baseline). Similarly, and as other commentators have said, war crimes have been agreed to be the baseline you must strictly respect, regardless of any other circumstances, including uneven conflict.

Less accurate analogy, but you get the idea: if you kill your pro boxer mugger, it’s self defence, but you’ll have committed murder. War crimes kind of define the minimum “moral standard” that can’t be crossed, even if you’re trying to define some sort of moral standard weighed by power. Seems a bit delusional to try and quantify stuff like this to me though.

right, this is quite evocative and what I initially had in mind, but the question seems to be more subtle? A village is a single centralized unit, here instances can defederate and users can block traffic. Will threads users invade the fediverse village or just not care about it, even if they have access? Could it give an opportunity for ppl to read content that will ever only be threads (political figures. institutions, etc.) without having a meta account and using a meta app? Will the bots that apparently plague threads rn will plague the fediverse? Why don’t they now? If some instances defederate and others not, could I have one account where I talk to the tourists, and another account in a defederated instance where I’m back in my calm village?

I agree with the imagery and moral aspects, but I feel like understanding the practical implications which are not obvious to me is important to gather momentum to kick them out - I felt like people disagree on subjects that they probably shouldn’t if they both had the same understanding of the situation (which includes me).

is there a writeup somewhere that ideally goes into enough detail to clearly understand how instances/federation work and what would really happen ? I hate Meta but I realize I have no clue what threads coming means and implies, decentralized systems are very unintuitive when you’re used to conventional social media.