why is guy being bullied for writing what all can understand

I would expect them to be confused and suspicious of the term “surplus labor value”. If not, then education has a problem.

User survey shows the editors hold left-wing and right-wing beliefs about equally

all i found was that self-responses are preponderantly left/center-left: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-04-25/Recent_research

editors hold left-wing and right-wing beliefs about equally

source? i’d doubt that unless you’re defining liberals as right-wing here

I’m thinking we should start banning yahoo.com from this commag. All that site does is copy from another site and attribute it so that we can’t see what the actual publisher is from the domain. (You can see at the top here that the OG source is Slate.)

1. That’s true. It doesn’t change that Iran is more oppressive, unfortunately. I hold that oppressing everyone (and especially a certain nearly 1/2 of the population) is worse than apartheid oppression.
2. My entire argument is that “Iranian claims” is different from “Iran claims” and The Guardian uses the noun phrase for everyone at the same rate. You might argue about the latter, but the former is what The Guardian uses to refer to “the things that X said” and not “X said”, because there is no such thing as “Iranian saids”, and the closest alternative “statements” is just longer and rare.
   Your reply does not address that, or that I did also argue the latter. From looking across their articles, including the one you sent and not just that paragraph, The Guardian uses “claims” the verb for Iran at about the same rate it does for the US. In fact, the same goes for the noun phrase in that article. (listing both: Trump claims, Iran has claimed, Trump was quick to claim, Mohammad Eslami[ ]claimed, Iranian claims, Trump’s claims.)

1. as bad as Israel is, it is not an authoritarian state oppressive of its “own” people, even though that doesn’t justify invading Iran. it is trending that way but it’s somewhat far from having an IRGC
2. you’re not comparing “Iran claims” to “US said”; you’re comparing “Iranian claims” to “US said” instead of “US statements”. here, “claims” is just shorter. in your example the word “claims” is used at the same frequency for trump and iran. google results suggest “US statements” is used at about the same percentage as “Iranian statements”

i have just scrolled through ten days without finding a trace. search results, the recent one is about the news item itself without any objections to the wording. the rest are from months ago and mostly do the same or are using guardian as a counterexample or pointing out the common use of passive voice in news headlines. the exceptions i didn’t find convincing

the axis of resistance’s goal is to maintain its collective security, after all

to be technical, it’s more trump’s fault for promising something the US could not guarantee. of course it’s israel’s fault for doing all this war in the first place but creating an unworkable deal is trump’s fault.

you can of course be left-and-center and still make mistakes such as this. despite what it was in the 1930s, guardian has been pretty consistently fair about this

Iran is the first time in millennia this kind of Islam has been a state

Edit: Am I wrong? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia_Islam

Ideally we would have something that’s more dehierarchized, but until someone figures out how to do that, all open source repositories have a group of maintainers (or some other name for those who have commit access) who need to (individually) approve of contributions. As it stands, open source is indeed shared effort, but shared effort that has to be approved by a member of a cabal. There’s a reason stewards are often called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictator_for_life (which is indeed a slightly different concept, but hopefully you get my point that chief maintainers have lasting influence and power).

It’s still much better than other levels (i.e. proprietary). When maintainers slog behind community PRs and wishes for too long and/or persistently screw them up, a critical mass of users leaving will build for alternatives created, accelerated by the fact that most of your project’s users are going to be enthusiasts accustomed to switching and upholding open source principles.

In summary, yes, maintainers make decisions to make users (or some shared vision) happy and are supposed to backtrack when enough of the users object. This is true whether the change is antagonistic or not. What you said in your first paragraph is the opposite of that. (I guess my initial question was what do you think should be the reason to backtrack other than users aren’t happy. “Users are hurt” is the same thing as “Users aren’t happy”.)

As for Audacity? It’s been four years with no attempts, so Tenacity doesn’t look like it’s going to pick up momentum. Until the next incident, Users won’t believe they’re being screwed (and I agree with them) and aren’t building that critical mass. (I also object that the opt-in telemetry PR was antagonistic.)

the switch to New Audacity is easier for users from any other DAW (such as Protools, Logic, Ableton) than for Old Audacity users

as an Old Audacity user I disagree with that. it is still extremely hard to use audacity as a DAW because it’s very much still a multitrack audio editor with some beat-based features and non-destructive effects. i don’t think clips were too hard to adjust to

Musescore was changed from a fully offline app to one tightly integrated into an online ecosystem.

I am also an old Musescore user. You would be a little right to talk about audio.com and pretty on the nail to talk about MuseHub but musescore.com absolutely not. musescore.com’s been a thing since 2010 (MuseScore was only founded 2008 and acquired 2017) with the “Save Online” feature. Hal Leonard sued this small project for storing copyvio scores back in the old '10s (and now Muse Group owns Hal Leonard). And it’s not like they’ve “integrated” it any more either; it’s just blumming uploading scores same as it always has been since 2010.

look at MuseHub. those shiny new effects and mixing, we advertise them so much, they’re free, they’re groundbreaking, you have to use proprietary MuseHub. the entire Muse Sounds stack is proprietary. and even then you can still use MuseScore entirely offline to do anything it could do in 3.x (that’s pre-acquisition for those unfamiliar with MuseScore version numbers).

any day now trump is gonna rejuvenate the economy

it’s been four years now

it was never meant to be opt in.

Source? I’ve posted numerous pieces of evidence to the contrary:

people finding out: https://github.com/audacity/audacity/pull/835#issuecomment-833778895

people highlight the opt-in dialog text: https://github.com/audacity/audacity/pull/835#discussion_r627756976

there are no commits in between; it could not have been changed to opt-in “when people found out” as you claim.

For one thing the Nuremberg Laws (1935) prohibit interracial marriage. That alone is bad. I also believe laws that restrict citizenship are bad. Of course I see a big problem with allat.

There were also many more “incidents” in the four years following the Nuremberg Laws… Audacity, none.

the only reason they backtracked is because users weren’t happy?

How do you think open-source development works?

the google and yandex thing is the telemetry thing, and i talk about the privacy policy (the GPL thing you mention) below. what are the other reasons? all i see is the CLA thing which is very very legit, but again all of these things are from four or five years ago, and we can always riot when they do turn it proprietary.

Musescore redesign awesome, I agree, but I’ll have to treat Tantacrul as any other Craig Federighi: https://github.com/audacity/audacity/discussions/932?sort=top#discussioncomment-782199

the code was never even merged; that’s definitely not true

it was a 2010s thing