It depends on how they “won”. If it was a full hearing with a jury and everything, that’s public record. If it’s arbitration, that’s probably not public record.

Bragging about a “win” in arbitration, and making something that’s not a public record, into a public record, is usually a problem.

With the current wording, while you can infer from context, the outcome of the case, it isn’t explicitly stated by the lawyer. The largest disclosure here is from the party that feels they were “wronged”, and the lawyer is simply stating that “this person wasn’t my client” (more or less). You fill in the rest.

The fact that the commenter was not their client is not disclosing any private information, nor any information about the matter that’s being discussed. It’s a simple statement of irrefutable fact. (Or fact that can be proven at least)

If the lawyer crosses a line by discussing case specifics, like what the matter regarded (divorce, custody, property, whatever), or the outcome of that case, when it is not a matter of public record, can land them in serious hot water.

I would assume, again, from context, that the matter is not presently a part of public record.

These are all valid opinions. Certainly 1% of movement is better than no movement. Certainly gets us closer to the goal, but IMO, it will take more movement before publishers will take Linux seriously, especially for more custom applications.

I would argue that capitalist monopolies are the problem.

There are examples where a “monopoly” has 100% of the market and they do a good job, usually in non-profit driven contexts. To provide an example: there’s only one organization in pretty much any given area, that handles extinguishing fires. Usually called the fire department, and it’s run by the local body of government in a monopoly context.

They still do a great job, but there’s no competition in fire fighting.

They’re not inherently profit driven.

Also, hats off to the firefighters out there, you guys are awesome. Anyways, back to my point.

There are good organizations that operate a monopoly in their service segment. They’re just typically owned and operated by a democratically elected government. Of the people, for the people, by the people.

Any monopoly that is profit driven, especially any that are capitalistic, will succumb to enshittification, 100% of the time, it’s just a matter of when it happens. The only time that it is possible to not have that happen, is in privately owned corporations, which are rare… But the leadership believes in improving the product more than profiteering. But on a long enough time line, that will also fail because inevitably someone will buy the company or inherit it, and they will want to maximize their profits over everything.

It will always happen when things are privately held, and especially if they’re publicly traded.

There’s a paradox I heard of that’s pretty relevant in this line of thought that is pretty transportable to most things. I heard it in the context of IT security.

It goes something like this: you buy security and after 2 or 3 years when you need to renew, nothing bad has happened, so it seems like you don’t need security. When in actual fact the extra security has been the reason there haven’t been any incidents.

So it’s almost impossible to prove that buying the security is helping without extensive analytics.

In many cases those analytics are either very difficult or impossible to get.

To demonstrate the transportable nature of this concept, let’s transpose it to vaccines.

If everyone is vaccinated, then nobody gets sick from those diseases, making it seem like the diseases are not a threat anymore, which means that vaccines are no longer useful.

Meanwhile, in all actual fact, the only reason why polio is so rare is because there is a safe and effective vaccine for it that everyone has taken (replace polio with whatever disease you want that has an effective vaccine).

It’s a paradox of: how do we prove this is working, without discontinuing it and possibly being eaten by rats/leopards/whatever.

If there’s only monopolies in the market then is their product the best on the market, or is everyone using it because there’s no alternatives?

Leaning that monopoly argument against capitalism, it’s almost certainly not the best product. When you have a captive audience, those that need your service and don’t have an alternative, there’s no incentive to innovate, or invest in improving the product at all. Do innovation stagnates so that corporations can maximize shareholder value; because the focus of a corporation isn’t to innovate, or improve what they do, their focus is always on extracting the most value for the least cost.

Therefore, monopolies will almost certainly lead to a sub-optimal product. The people that suffer for this are the users of that product. In the case of something like Google search, that’s basically everyone.

There’s a more modern term for this phenomenon: enshittification. Actively making a product worse specifically for the purposes of creating profits for shareholders.

Late stage capitalism is fun, isn’t it?

This. Entirely this.

The frustrating part is when there are laws in place for something, and they’re not being enforced and law makers think that making more laws about something will somehow fix the enforcement issues…

Making it more illegal only harms law abiding people, enforcement actually harms the law breakers.

It’s not rocket surgery.

I haven’t either.

Speaking of things I haven’t done… I’ve have, not once, turned the wrong way down a one way street.

… It was twice.

Legally, I don’t think the lawyer can brag about such a win on a public forum.

It’s very very likely she can’t say more than that the comment is from the ‘ex-spouse of a client’ without risking libel or something.

It’s up to the reader to infer the context.

The same way as: “there are only two types of people in the world, those that can extrapolate from incomplete data.”

That’s an important step, for sure, but that’s not going to push the majority.

I’m that guy for plenty of people and the number of times a conversation starts with “so I bought…” is crazy. It’s basically the first thing anyone says to me when they need help.

This probably won’t be showing up on shelves at best buy along side computers from the likes of Dell, HP, and Lenovo. I kind of expect it to show up next to the Xbox, PlayStation, and switch, if it shows up at all.

Also, steamOS is not exactly a desktop operating system right out of the gate, is entirely gaming focused. Yeah, you can use it for those things, but that’s not the focus of the device/OS.

I’m not sure Grandma and Grandpa would want a steam machine as a replacement for their aging Windows 7 home computer.

Standardization is a requirement. Whether that still gives the user the ability to color outside of the lines on what’s considered “standard” will be the key factor.

I’m as happy about this news as the next tech enthusiast, but bluntly, it’s not a big shift. Going from … What? 5% to 6%? That’s great and all but it’s hardly moving the needle.

If we want a significant shift we need OEMs selling prebuilt PCs with some flavor of Linux pre-installed, that’s as easy to use as the competition (Windows/mac) with compatibility that’s both good enough and transparent enough that people don’t need to think about it much.

Before we get Linux OEM PCs on store shelves, we need to figure out that last bit first.

That still hasn’t happened yet. We can’t even agree what window manager should be used, nevermind any of the dozen or so other critical services on the system…

The thing that makes Linux great is that anyone and everyone can, and does, make stuff for it. That’s also the thing that’s going to hold it back from being put on store shelves pre installed on prebuilt PCs.

I don’t see why.

It’s not exactly a controversial question. It’s possible they’ve never seen the term used before.

So yeah. Pile on with the downvotes because someone is new! Fuck 'em! /s

This is such a controversial person to discuss. On one hand, loot boxes, the steam market for trading, and a lot of gambling and profiteering going on. At the same time, all of the OP comments are also true.

Out of all the billionaires, I dislike gaben the least. The net good he’s done for gaming may not balance the scales entirely, but at least there’s a discussion to be had whether what gaben has done is for the better, or for the worse. Which is more than I can say about most billionaires I know of.

Thanks. I’ve never owned, fired, or even held a gun.

I have no intention to. I knew most of these, but I’m glad to see it officially written out like this.

If I’m ever in the position where I need to handle a gun, I can do so more safely then I would have before.

Good work. Keep that shit up.

The biggest problem with the American Constitution is the right to bear arms, IMO. I’m not American so take this with a grain of salt, but think of the dumbest person you’ve met, would you trust them with a gun? Probably not.

It shouldn’t be a right to own a gun. I’m not saying the barrier should be all that high, but you should be required to prove that you’re more intelligent than an oak tree to own one.

I’m not American, and this kind of absolute is completely unacceptable.

You’re basically fun-shaming.

There’s plenty of stuff that’s universally disliked, like… Idk, murder… But that’s not the whole reason guns exist. Sport shooting, hunting, event target practice, can be lots of fun to people, and they all involve guns, and no person is harmed, if done correctly.

Stop being so hateful.

I don’t even like guns. I’ve never held, nor fired one. And I wouldn’t ever, even slightly, say that there is no “fun” to be had with firearms.

You’re a dick.

I get your point, but hunting, as a sport, is about as old of a sport as you can get, and for that sport there will always be people who prefer firearms.

At a basic level, firearms really can’t be barred from most countries as a blanket rule for everyone that is never allowed to be broken.

Therefore, firearms exist and people have them. That might not be you, or your neighbor, nor anyone you know, but they exist and people have them.

If you are ever in the rare position of being in the presence of one, and/or the situation where you need to handle one for any reason, would this information not be better to know ahead of time, rather than unknown until that moment?

It’s like first aid, IMO. I’ve known first aid for well over two decades, including CPR and everything. I’ve never needed anything more than how to correctly apply a bandaid. I’m still grateful to know what I know in case I’m ever in a situation that I may need it. That situation might never come, it may never happen. I’d rather know, and never have the need to know, than have the need to know, and not know.

Safety, first aid, anything that keeps people alive, should be universal knowledge. Doesn’t matter if it’s guns, cars, CPR, bandaids, or forklift safety… It’s better to know it, and never need it, than need it, and not know it. Period.

I’m not doing this again.

I appreciate that. I can’t say anything is better right now, but I can say that I think I’m handling it better. So that’s something, I guess?

Either way, I wanted to thank you very much for your words. Be well.

I kind of like this. When I’m searching for how to do something, I probably don’t want your entire codebase, just don’t snippet that does the thing.

I’ll probably need to modify it so the thing works in a specific way, so I can make what I need to make.

Usually I just need a point in the right direction and I can assemble the rest.