TheMeerkat's recent activity
-
Comment on You make friends *HERE*?! in ~tildes
-
Comment on Tildes End-of-Year 'Awards' 2024 in ~talk
TheMeerkat Link ParentExcept for you. I'm your mom. Go clean your room.Except for you. I'm your mom. Go clean your room.
-
Comment on Tildes Demographics Survey, year… uh, it’s 2024? in ~tildes
TheMeerkat Link ParentThey're referring to: Please check this box if you identify as a “plurality” or a “system.” The right loves to just call anything they don't like "left" or "woke." IDK.Huh? I took the survey the day you posted it and I don't remember that question at all?
They're referring to:
Please check this box if you identify as a “plurality” or a “system.”Also also, what the hell does leftism have to do with psychiatric diagnoses lol
The right loves to just call anything they don't like "left" or "woke." IDK.
-
Comment on Disney pulls transgender storyline from Pixar’s ‘Win or Lose’ streaming series in ~tv
TheMeerkat LinkI thought we got rid of this bullshit argument back in the early 2010s once everyone realized it was pathetic cowardice. Frustrating, but not surprising, I suppose. Disney continues to be soulless...When it comes to animated content for a younger audience, we recognize that many parents would prefer to discuss certain subjects with their children on their own terms and timeline.
I thought we got rid of this bullshit argument back in the early 2010s once everyone realized it was pathetic cowardice.
Frustrating, but not surprising, I suppose. Disney continues to be soulless and behind the times.
-
Comment on Is there a model of computer mouse that will let you easily open it up to clean it OR in ~tech
TheMeerkat LinkYou'll want an IP6* mouse. They're not going to look or feel that good, but they are designed not to have any means of ingress. Random example:...You'll want an IP6* mouse. They're not going to look or feel that good, but they are designed not to have any means of ingress.
Random example: https://www.amazon.com/SIIG-Wired-Computer-Waterproof-Mouse/dp/B0BV67QNT3/
-
Comment on What does the delete button on a post do? in ~tildes
TheMeerkat Link ParentWithout elaborating: the topic was productive and you received a pretty definitive answer. It's not unproductive simply because it wasn't the answer you wanted to hear. I say this because this is...- Exemplary
Without elaborating: the topic was productive and you received a pretty definitive answer. It's not unproductive simply because it wasn't the answer you wanted to hear.
I say this because this is a pretty unhealthy attitude to have, especially here on Tildes.
-
Comment on Question for the women in relationships: how would you react if a male friend asked to hang with you alone? in ~life.women
TheMeerkat Link ParentValid. :)Valid. :)
-
Comment on Question for the women in relationships: how would you react if a male friend asked to hang with you alone? in ~life.women
TheMeerkat Link ParentAre you as interested in a 1-on-1 friendship with her boyfriend?Are you as interested in a 1-on-1 friendship with her boyfriend?
-
Comment on Question for the women in relationships: how would you react if a male friend asked to hang with you alone? in ~life.women
TheMeerkat Link ParentMay I ask two follow-up questions? You don't have to answer, and they're genuine curiosity. Are you straight? "Potentially be a romantic partner" = any single male your age, or something more...May I ask two follow-up questions? You don't have to answer, and they're genuine curiosity.
- Are you straight?
- "Potentially be a romantic partner" = any single male your age, or something more specific?
-
Comment on Question for the women in relationships: how would you react if a male friend asked to hang with you alone? in ~life.women
TheMeerkat Link ParentIt's a bit vibes-based? You came off as a tad bit... defensive, I suppose. Like you're trying to justify to yourself why you really want her alone with you.* If you have to "come clean" about...It's a bit vibes-based? You came off as a tad bit... defensive, I suppose. Like you're trying to justify to yourself why you really want her alone with you.*
then I kinda came clean that it wasn't accidental that I have been striking up more conversation randomly and that I am trying to create my own social circle and maybe hang out with her more and she seemed receptive to that idea.
If you have to "come clean" about something, it's kinda manipulation-y feeling.
She wanted to plan it such that her s.o. was in town for the invite (it's a long distance relationship and he lived in another country). I said that that's probably not a good idea cause while I guess the 3 of us could fit in one place, it'd be a tight fit (I have a really small living room, made worse by my really big desk cause I WFH as a software developer and wanted a really decent setup)
This also feels, IDK, like a whole lot of justifying.
*Not in a crime way. I'm aware this sounded a little bit worse than I meant it, but I don't know how to fix it.
-
Comment on Question for the women in relationships: how would you react if a male friend asked to hang with you alone? in ~life.women
TheMeerkat LinkThis is ultimately my opinion. There are a... small handful of red (or maybe just orange) flags in your post re: romantic intention? But if I'm not analyzing your intent, since that's for you to...I respect that but I did get curious cause I thought our generation (im in my earlier 30s) had done away with the notion that males and females can't be platonic friends
This is ultimately my opinion. There are a... small handful of red (or maybe just orange) flags in your post re: romantic intention? But if I'm not analyzing your intent, since that's for you to decide, then I agree with your stated opinion.
This is ultimately an extremely "straight" problem to have, too. I'm a lesbian. If I'm in a relationship with a woman, do I not get to have female friends? Are bisexuals just in Friend Prison forever? It's all so silly and gendered and old-fashioned.
-
Comment on The Just World Cultural License—a copyleft license to make the world a better place in ~creative
TheMeerkat Link ParentFirst, it's important to emphasize that the JWCL is explicitly not designed for source code or software libraries like the kurl example you gave. This is a license for creative cultural...First, it's important to emphasize that the JWCL is explicitly not designed for source code or software libraries like the
kurlexample you gave. This is a license for creative cultural works--art, literature, music, etc.--not functional software. I can see how its principles might seem misaligned with software use cases, where interoperability, downstream dependencies, and contributions from multiple parties create complexities that ethical clauses could exacerbate. Software licenses need precision and legal simplicity because they're tools for building broader systems. Creative cultural licenses, on the other hand, address how works of expression--stories, images, ideas--are shared and used in society. That's a fundamentally different landscape where the line between use and misuse often involves intent.You're right: ethical disagreements--like those around AI--can be irreconcilable, even in good faith. The JWCL doesn't demand consensus on every ethical question, though! Instead, it establishes a clear boundary: creative works licensed under it cannot be used to engage in, promote, or perpetuate specific forms of harm, like human rights abuses, environmental destruction, or hate speech. These are not vague, subjective concepts; they are foundational principles of dignity, justice, and sustainability. If someone's actions violate those principles, regardless of their justification, they're out of alignment with the JWCL. Where edge cases arise--like the AI debate--it's true that disagreement might persist, but the Conditional Use Allowances offer an essential mechanism: they acknowledge systemic imperfection, requiring users to demonstrate ethical intent, harm mitigation, and transparency when their actions are unavoidable. This isn't about assuming everyone agrees; it's about setting guardrails for good-faith engagement while holding clear violations accountable.
Your point that the JWCL feels like a "code of conduct" is valid, but IMO, overly simplistic. Framing it as purely social would undercut its purpose. A code of conduct relies on voluntary adherence and purely social consequences, if even those. The JWCL, by contrast, formalizes ethical commitments in a legal structure. This is because cultural works have real-world impact. The harm caused by misuse of a creative work is not merely a question of reputation; it's material, perpetual, and often irreversible. Legal enforceability ensures that creators have a tangible way to prevent their works from being weaponized, even if that comes with complexity. I feel like that's a fair trade-off.
I understand the concern that legal ambiguity opens the door to bad actors, but just to be frank, no license can ever be perfectly insulated from misuse. The basis of these licenses--copyright law--is already so egregiously imperfect as to be unethical in and of itself. The JWCL mitigates this by balancing strong ethical principles with practical safeguards: its grace period for unintentional violations, for example, prevents overzealous enforcement against users acting in good faith.
At the same time, the license operates as a filter--if someone's ethical priorities are so fundamentally misaligned that the JWCL feels like a liability, then, to be honest, maybe it is. For them. They're free to use works under other licenses. For creators who adopt it, the JWCL serves as a statement of intent and a tool to ensure their works are used in ways that align with their values.
In short, the JWCL is not meant to solve every ethical disagreement or be universally applicable. It's not even meant to solve most problems. It's a legal license specifically, exclusively, for cultural works, offering creators who care about justice and sustainability a way to ensure their works reflect those values. It invites users to engage with good faith and ethical responsibility, and while it cannot eliminate disagreement, it establishes a clear, actionable framework for minimizing harm. For those who find the JWCL too subjective or restrictive, I'm fine with it not being for everyone. But for creators who want their work to contribute to a better world, the JWCL is a meaningful alternative to licenses that prioritize simplicity over ethics.
In shorter: I'm more interested in harm that is happening than unlikely, hypothetical future abuse. Perfect is the enemy of good and all that.
-
Comment on Armchair governing dictator - new rule for 2025 (fun) in ~talk
TheMeerkat LinkAny answer that does not directly address climate change and our upcoming near-inevitable extinction is non-viable, IMO. However, since this is tagged with fun and not be a serious downer, let's...Any answer that does not directly address climate change and our upcoming near-inevitable extinction is non-viable, IMO. However, since this is tagged with fun and not be a serious downer, let's be creative. I'll assume this is an alternate universe where the world is no longer ending and basic needs are taken care of.
As Grand Benevolent Dictator of the United States for one single day, I'd establish a national service and civic engagement program aimed at redefining what it means to be an American citizen. This wouldn't quite be a mandatory draft (though I would find some way to make it extremely encouraged without necessarily forcing you into it), but an open, flexible opportunity for anyone aged 18 to 28 to engage in meaningful service across a range of pathways: rebuilding broken communities, helping the environment, or contributing to innovation and infrastructural challenges we face. Think of it as a multifaceted, mandatory-adjacent national project where young people could do anything from teaching in rural schools, to restoring forests, to working on our crumbling bridges.
Participants would earn a bonus to their Universal Basic Income (which I'm skipping over because, again, fun alternate universe where we don't have to worry about boring things like "our people dying from starvation") and access to skill-building opportunities--all within a flexible commitment ranging from six months to two years, depending on the project. The program would be designed to include and empower people from all backgrounds and abilities.
Why focus on this? Because it could address so many tangled issues at once. At a time when societal polarization is as deep as it has ever been, a program like this would create shared experiences that bridge geographic, economic, and cultural divides. It would give young people not just practical skills and career opportunities, but also a deeper sense of connection to their fellow citizens and the challenges facing us. By channeling human energy into areas like education, sustainability, and innovation, we'd be planting seeds for long-term growth and individual development. Also, moral responsibility and anti-apathy.
More than anything, it's about turning citizenship into something active and collaborative rather than passive or boorishly tribalistic. Of course, I'm aware this is the kind of grand vision that lives and dies in the fine print. Implementation would demand thoughtful design, robust funding, and a keen eye for avoiding bureaucratic pitfalls. But that's also not fun, so I won't worry about that here.
It's like pitching America as a startup for collective good--mission-driven, skill-focused, and full of potential for collaboration. Would it fix everything? No. Not even most things, probably--adults with decades of experience are probably better-positioned, intellectually speaking, to fix Major Problems™. But in my fleeting moment as Grand Benevolent Dictator, I'd like to think it would offer a little more connection, joy, and imagination. And anything that kicks apathy's ass is basically the best metagoal we can have.
-
Comment on Inline image support in ~tildes
TheMeerkat LinkIn addition to the above: there's nothing that stops you from linking to images. People do it with some frequency. Having to click on a link adds some degree of intentionality to the process and...In addition to the above: there's nothing that stops you from linking to images. People do it with some frequency. Having to click on a link adds some degree of intentionality to the process and helps ensure the layout looks cleaner for everyone.
-
Comment on The Just World Cultural License—a copyleft license to make the world a better place in ~creative
TheMeerkat Link ParentOof. Thanks for letting me know! I'll tune the sizes and margins later tonight. I did design it to be responsive, but I'm aware my phone screen is probably a bit larger than the median.Oof. Thanks for letting me know! I'll tune the sizes and margins later tonight. I did design it to be responsive, but I'm aware my phone screen is probably a bit larger than the median.
-
Comment on The Just World Cultural License—a copyleft license to make the world a better place in ~creative
TheMeerkat Link ParentAdditionally, @stu2b50, the article I've linked before addresses similar concerns for source code:Additionally, @stu2b50, the article I've linked before addresses similar concerns for source code:
Your license will harm contribution.
It may actually improve it.
Developers with serious reservations about working in the open under
traditional free-or-open terms aren’t willing to check their
consciences at the door to check their code into the repo. Many
projects simply aren’t happening in the open, or happening at all,
without a license choice that unlocks their collaborative potential.
Many projects working out in the open without a license, or with a
hastily cobbled-together one, aren’t seeing collaboration they would
if their ground rules were laid out officially.On the other hand, encouraging contribution from those who disagree,
or taking their code on the sly, without saying anything about the
disagreement, is one of the key problems ethical licenses aim to
solve. Developers shouldn’t have to subsidize behavior they find
abhorrent with free code, and they shouldn’t be kept in the dark,
wondering whether what they’re doing is contributing to wrong. Many
developers looking for ethical licenses today took that risk in the
past, and took a hard lesson later, when uses of their work came to
light.Uncertainty about the terms will harm adoption by those who can’t tell if their use is allowed.
Possibly. It depends on the terms. And not just the “ethical” terms,
but the “meta” terms—what lawyers call “rules of construction”—as
well.Even where terms do prove vague applied to many situations,
accepting that dynamic is a valid drafting choice. Legal drafters
choose to use imprecise, general language more often than computer programmers tend to expect.Dig up a form contract online—commercial license agreement, software
as a service, consulting terms, nondisclosure agreement—and search for
terms like “reasonable”, “prudent”, and “efforts”. Those terms are
mainstays of legal drafting, but not because they have any specific
technical meanings that are easy to apply in every case.Or look at Creative Commons’ NonCommercial license. Here’s how
CC-BY-NC
4.0 draws its line:NonCommercial means not primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or monetary compensation.
Then a single, specific exception:
For purposes of this Public License, the exchange of the Licensed Material for other material subject to Copyright and Similar Rights by
digital file-sharing or similar means is NonCommercial provided there
is no payment of monetary compensation in connection with the
exchange.That’s it. Not exactly Turing complete, but it works.
You may not like Creative Commons’ NonCommercial license. But it’s a
functional license that many creators have chosen and successfully
enforced.Uncertainty about the terms will harm adoption by big organizations whether they’d use unethically or not.
Yes, but as much because of those companies’ inbound licensing
policies as because of developers’ choice of outbound terms.Some organizations choose to approve licenses only by company-wide
policy, for any and all use cases, without supervision. Some of those
can’t reliably tell what they’re using software to do. So many of
those organizations ban copyleft, rather than worry about when it will
or won’t require sharing. And many of those same organizations also
impose ethically informed corporate social responsibility codes of
conduct on all their vendors and subvendors.Some ethically motivated developers have adopted licenses that
prohibit not unethical use as such, but use by particular forms of
organization, as a proxy for the unethical of behavior they want to
stop. For example, the Peer Production License.PolyForm’s Noncommercial license improves on Creative Commons’
approach by including a special “safe harbor” provision for
organizations.
Predominantly noncommercial organizations, like charities, can rely on
that provision to approve the license organization-wide, without
worrying about specific use cases. An ethical license could use a
similar mechanism like PolyForm, or do without it, like Creative
Commons. -
Comment on The Just World Cultural License—a copyleft license to make the world a better place in ~creative
TheMeerkat Link ParentYou're right that Creative Commons licenses are narrow in scope; they ask simple legal questions like whether a work can be shared, adapted, or used commercially. But this simplicity comes with a...You're right that Creative Commons licenses are narrow in scope; they ask simple legal questions like whether a work can be shared, adapted, or used commercially. But this simplicity comes with a trade-off: CC licenses deliberately sidestep questions of ethical impact. A photo licensed under CC BY, for example, could be used in an ad for fossil fuel expansion or a PSA to further hate speech. For creators who care about the ethical consequences of their work, this gap matters.
That broader ethical scope naturally means users must ask more questions. The JWCL isn't just asking, "Can you use this work?" but also, "Should you?" Those questions--about dignity, sustainability, and justice--are admittedly more complex than Creative Commons, yes, but they are essential for creators and users who want to ensure that creative works are part of the solution. That said, it doesn't mean the license is impossibly vague.
Most violations are obvious: hate speech, environmental destruction, or clear exploitation fall outside what the JWCL permits. For grayer areas--like a tech company relying on imperfect carbon credits--the license's Conditional Use Allowances allow flexibility. If perfect compliance isn't possible due to systemic constraints, ethical intent and harm mitigation are what matter. The JWCL isn't a demand for perfection; it's a call for responsibility and the exertion of effort.
Your Mozilla example is a good one because it highlights the tension between imperfection and intent. Could someone argue that Mozilla's use of carbon credits or its LLMs violates the JWCL? Sure--if they approached it in bad faith. But in practical terms, Mozilla's efforts to mitigate harm and advance open-source accessibility align with the license's spirit. Ethical guidelines rely on shared understanding, not legal precision, to succeed. If a company is making a clear effort to act responsibly, the JWCL has room for that. It's designed to punish obvious bad actors, not those doing their best within a flawed system. Would someone who chooses to use the JWCL to begin with also choose to suddenly act in bad faith, malicious ways against a nonprofit? Not theoretically--in reality. I sincerely doubt you could make a genuine argument that they would.
I understand your concern that ambiguity could deter users--that they might treat JWCL-licensed works like "nuclear waste." But this fear assumes a legal fragility that doesn't exist. First, the JWCL explicitly protects users acting in good faith through generous mechanisms designed to protect honest people trying to do the right thing. Second, the JWCL is self-selecting. Creators who adopt it are signaling that they care about ethical use; users who want to respect that commitment will engage with the license in good faith. For those who don't share those values, other licenses exist. That's fine. The JWCL isn't meant to appeal universally--it's meant to empower creators who want their work to align with justice, dignity, and sustainability.
Ultimately, I believe the questions posed by the JWCL are far less overwhelming in practice than they might seem on paper. If someone approaches the license wondering, "What harm do I need to avoid?" rather than "How can I lawyer my way around this?" then the answers are clear. Most people don't need legal counsel to know what acting ethically looks like. Think about every ethical decision you make in your day-to-day life. Do you need to consult an expert advisor to know if you're doing something good, bad, or neutral?
The JWCL is designed for creators and users who want to act responsibly and who see ethical creativity as an opportunity, not a burden.
Your feedback has helped me articulate this better, so thank you for continuing the dialogue. I firmly believe that creative works have immense power to shape the world--and that the JWCL provides a practical, thoughtful framework for doing so.
-
Comment on The Just World Cultural License—a copyleft license to make the world a better place in ~creative
TheMeerkat Link ParentIt's too late, I'm already relying on YouTube tutorials to not suffer a horrif-- *splat*It's too late, I'm already relying on YouTube tutorials to not suffer a horrif--
*splat*
-
Comment on The Just World Cultural License—a copyleft license to make the world a better place in ~creative
TheMeerkat (edited )Link ParentI appreciate your elaboration, as well as your thoughtful response. Your concern that legal uncertainty could deter use is valid, and I understand your perspective. However, all licenses carry...I appreciate your elaboration, as well as your thoughtful response.
Your concern that legal uncertainty could deter use is valid, and I understand your perspective. However, all licenses carry risk, and ambiguity exists in all legal systems. For example, the Creative Commons NonCommercial clause has been criticized for years because it's not objectively defined. Yet it works because shared understanding, reinforced by community norms and legal precedent, provides practical cultural knowledge of what "NonCommercial" actually means. This is why I use it as a strong example in the FAQ.
"In theory" and "in practice" are two very different fields. In theory, the vagueness of NonCommercial as a clause could lead to all sorts of lawsuits based on the same legal FUD you're concerned about; in practice, this has literally never happened (to my knowledge).
Additionally, the JWCL explicitly mitigates ambiguity through generous grace periods for good-faith accident, contextual guidelines for Conditional Use Allowances in an imperfect way--which Mozilla would easily 100% meet, despite your concerns--and a severability clause ensuring partial enforcement even under dispute. Mozilla, for instance, may rely on fossil fuels for its operations due to systemic constraints, but its commitment to open-source access and ethical intent ensures compliance with the JWCL's allowances.
Could someone misuse vague terms to make a bad-faith legal argument? Absolutely. But that's true of any system. I'm certain you've heard of the myriad SLAPP suits that exist in the world and the nuisance they pose to regular people and constructive dialogue. The solution isn't to abandon ethical licensing any more than it is to abandon laws that can be misinterpreted, e.g. laws forbidding defamation. Again, I would strongly encourage you to read that Kyle E. Mitchell article.
Ultimately, ethical guidelines are only going to be adopted by creators who want to act in ethical ways, and consumers will only choose to adapt or share works under the JWCL if they also wish to act in ethical ways. This shared effort of good faith world-bettering is, I believe, enough to ensure continued good faith in dealings regarding the ethical guidelines themselves.
-
Comment on The Just World Cultural License—a copyleft license to make the world a better place in ~creative
TheMeerkat Link ParentI address this at great length in the FAQ (under "Some of the Just Use Restrictions are quite vague", if you're using a Gecko-based browser). Additionally, please read this article by a lawyer.I address this at great length in the FAQ (under "Some of the Just Use Restrictions are quite vague", if you're using a Gecko-based browser).
Additionally, please read this article by a lawyer.
The correct and 100% official answer is "waves." This is a frequent point of confusion for new users. Please ensure you use the correct term, @elight. :)
You can help cement the term by labeling every post, past or future, by someone who says the demonym is anything else with Malice. Thanks!
Sarcasm disclaimer: this post is in no way sarcastic. This is definitely completely official and a responsible way to use the Malice tag.
Sarcasm disclaimer disclaimer: okay, I lied. It WAS sarcasm. Please don't actually do that.