TheTechnician27

God bless you, Chargeman Ken.

You’re not contradicting anything they said, and you’re not contradicting that Steam is a monopoly.

That tends to happen when you have a monopoly on an industry where you get 30% of the revenue from other people’s hard work.

Any chance of something like OpenWrt?

Say what you will, but those 84 people stayed because there’s no better place for microwaved insults to Southern cuisine this side of the Walmart frozen dinners aisle.

OP, you say “free, open source, and fully attributed”, but it’s really not fully attributed. I know Google will live, but you need to be more attentive to licensure and credit. Here are some major problems (in no particular order):

• The weather icon pack is licensed under CC BY 4.0, yet you never mention this license. It’s not sharealike (“SA”), so you can relicense, but it would be nice for users to know that you are, in fact, allowed to do that.
• You never link to the weather icons page so users can easily find the original icons.
• You say “inspired by Google’s Weather Icons v4” but then never say what you changed or how. Did you modify them? Build these from scratch using Google’s as a reference? You don’t have to say for the license; this would just be nice. If it can’t be summed up in a sentence or two, then fair enough.
• In “Credits & Acknowledgments”, you never mention the Google Weather icons – which are the entire reason this repo exists. Given the only requirement of CC BY is proper attribution, something needs to go here.
• You don’t even link back to the third-party repo where you got them from.
• Under “License & Legal Notice” and in your LICENSE file, you call the copyright status of the icons “uncertain”. This confuses the hell out of me, because on the icons pack page for Google, it clearly reads at the bottom: Except as otherwise noted, the content of this page is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License, and code samples are licensed under the Apache 2.0 License.
  • This to me indicates you did minimal research and didn’t actually care about the license but called it “open-source” anyway and happened to get lucky. It seems like instead of finding the official source, you got them from this repo which is similarly sloppy.
  • One of the lines reads “No official Google documentation has been located that confirms these specific icons are released under an open source license”. OP, for the love of actual god, this would’ve taken less time to find than it took you to type that sentence; below is the second result on DuckDuckGo for “google weather icons pack” after your own repository:

Now you have all your research done for you, and Cunningham’s law is proven right again.

Correct, as it has to. In addition to behavior, CheckUsers use IP addresses to help identify sockpuppets. If you could bypass the exemption by just saying “here’s a new account; pls exempt”, it would quickly become common knowledge among sockmasters that all they need is to quickly ask and be accepted days later.

At that point, the block on proxy editing near-completely fails at one of its main functions.

I don’t know what you mean by “identify yourself”. You need an account with a trustworthy history of editing, at which point you can request the exemption.

You can get an exception.

True. Facebook from its inception as Facemash was a way for creepy, misogynist slimeballs to ogle and “rank” women they went to school with against their consent by harvesting public databases. “It was just a prank bro.” —Mark ‘Real Human’ Zuckerberg

OP, I would seriously consider trying the Arch Wiki for this. I really hope you had a backup, but you probably need expert-level advice here (at least below “paid data recovery specialist”) if you have any hope of unfucking this. Obviously you’ve learned your lesson about running random commands you don’t understand in response to an error message, so I don’t think people should be scolding you here for that.

Betteridge’s law in shambles

Seems like it’s the most active one too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j54JPLQWdyQ

The discoverers themselves refer to it as a backdoor, so frankly I don’t know what you’re on about accusing this article of misrepresenting their findings.

Why read an actual article written by humans when you can turn it into more generative AI garbage instead? 🙄

You insert it rectally and then honk, obviously.

The ship hasn’t sailed; the more countries you let do that, the more problematic the precedent becomes. This isn’t a binary thing.

Issue requests or pull requests?

How dare you!! Here’s why you need to be vegan right now by the way grumble grumble grumble