We can't correct the spelling errors
-
@joe.edwards said:
Maybe I'm just sick of watching the same debate over the same tired issues play out over and over again.
I'm not going to bother engaging someone who either:
1) Can't read, or
2) doesn't know the difference between the words "must" and "should".It'd be more interesting to talk to a potted plant.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@joe.edwards said:
I was talking about the discussion turning back to taxes. It was briefly interesting to see everybody weigh in politically but can we shut up about the government for one thread?Maybe I'm just sick of watching the same debate over the same tired issues play out over and over again.
I'm not going to bother engaging someone who either:
1) Can't read, or
2) doesn't know the difference between the words "must" and "should".It'd be more interesting to talk to a potted plant.
-
@Sutherlands said:
People writing personal projects and then deciding to put them out for use is what (I think) blakey essentially has a problem with OpenSource. (Hopefully I'm not putting words in his mouth here. If so, then I'll say them for myself.) Writing something quick, then putting it out and not supporting it or not giving any thought to what are important considerations (GUI, accessibility).
If so, that makes sense. However, that is one of the things that people find to be strengths of Open Source software. That someone can whip up a quick app, often for a very specialized use case that doesn't merit getting full corporate/bureaucratic treatment. Having more software, even if it isn't completely up to the perfect standard is better than having less software. Especially when it's free software that nobody is being forced to pay for.
-
@blakeyrat said:
I'm not going to bother engaging someone who either:
1) Can't read, or
2) doesn't know the difference between the words "must" and "should".(1) (a) The sentence "technology should be accessible" means "if it is technology it should be accessible"
(1) (b) The sentence "all technology should be accessible" means "if it is technology it should be accessible"
(2) So, if you had said "technology must be accessible", I counter argued a number of cases where I don't believe it must... like personal projects, or specific examples where it would be ludicrous to do so.
But, you claim that is a strawman that I created for you, and that you actually said "technology should be accessible", in which case I provide EXACTLY the same set of counter arguments to the non-strawman version of your claim.
I don't really care about the tiny semantic difference between the two words, as my points are equally valid for both sentences.
-
@Snooder said:
Having more software, even if it isn't completely up to the perfect standard is better than having less software.
I recently spent more time than I'd like to admit watching a Let's Play trudging through the cesspools that are the Ouya and XBox indie game marketplaces... and I'm not sure I agree.
Having to wade through shit in the hope of finding a diamond is not a positive user experience. Just having quality standards in the first place can dramatically improve that experience. It seems to hold up then that bad software polluting an ecosystem actively makes that system worse.
-
@TDWTF123 said:
I'm rather unclear as to how you think it's 'free' to place restrictions on what someone can do. It clearly isn't. It's the opposite of freedom.
RMS and the GPL would like a word with you.@joe.edwards said:
Maybe I'm just sick of watching the same debate over the same tired issues play out over and over again.
This is now a GPL vs Apache vs BSD thread.
-
@Snooder said:
If so, that makes sense. However, that is one of the things that people find to be strengths of Open Source software. That someone can whip up a quick app, often for a very specialized use case that doesn't merit getting full corporate/bureaucratic treatment. Having more software, even if it isn't completely up to the perfect standard is better than having less software. Especially when it's free software that nobody is being forced to pay for.
Those people are wrong.
Look, let's take Git again. I see what you're saying: ok Linus wrote Git for his own use on Linux, and then it started spreading and getting more wide use. Fine.
But here's the problem: despite having wide use, it still is a piece of shit. After, what, 7 years of development. This is also due to open source:
1) Open source developers have a "got mine, fuck you" attitude towards building software-- if they can use it, they don't give a shit whether other people can.
2) Open source developers (somehow?) don't mind if a program has a learning cliff instead of a learning curve. This one mystifies me, because a program with a gently learning curve is so obviously superior that I simply can't imagine what mindset would reject that.
3) Open source developers will build software that "uses" other software. This would be a non-issue, if they did development properly and used the shared library intended for that purpose, but that's not what they do: instead they build software that "uses" the other software via. an interface designed for human beings! The end result of this is that the interface designed for human beings can't evolve, because doing so would break other tools that depend on it.
1 and 2 are just the open source philosophy/mindset in action. 3 is just godawful engineering. But the end result is that the software starts shitty and stays shitty no matter how many users it has.
That's the problem.
If we lived in an alternative universe where Git got popular, then Git as a result of that popularity actually improved and became good software, I'd be overjoyed. (I'd still like the Microsoft model better, where you have all the required components in the product before shipping on day one. But I wouldn't hate open source as much.) But we don't live in that universe. We live in crap-universe, where open source products are crap and stay crap regardless of how popular they become.
-
@joe.edwards said:
@Snooder said:
Having more software, even if it isn't completely up to the perfect standard is better than having less software.
I recently spent more time than I'd like to admit watching a Let's Play trudging through the cesspools that are the Ouya and XBox indie game marketplaces... and I'm not sure I agree.
Having to wade through shit in the hope of finding a diamond is not a positive user experience. Just having quality standards in the first place can dramatically improve that experience. It seems to hold up then that bad software polluting an ecosystem actively makes that system worse.
That's not an argument for having less software (and therefore less choice), that's an argument for better filtration systems and/or UI. See, the important bit to remember is that what might be shit to you, can be gold to someone else. You don't really know that X is 'bad', you only know that you personally don't like it. So you want to not see it in the list of choices to make. However, for someone who isn't you, X isn't bad at all. In fact, it does exactly what he wants it to do in the way that he wants it to do it.That's actually really the crux of blakey's problem. He sees a lot of software that is built by and for a specific demographic. That demographic, being what it is, is not at all concerned with things that concern blakey. The solution, which ought to be obvious, is for blakey to make software that addresses those concerns and advocate for people who also make that software. Which he does. The part I take issue with is when he extends that to shitting on software that doesn't address his concerns or yelling in an extremely strident voice that all software should cater to his concerns.
-
@Snooder said:
If so, that makes sense. However, that is one of the things that people find to be strengths of Open Source software. That someone can whip up a quick app, often for a very specialized use case that doesn't merit getting full corporate/bureaucratic treatment. Having more software, even if it isn't completely up to the perfect standard is better than having less software. Especially when it's free software that nobody is being forced to pay for.
This is what OSS proponents often claim as a good thing, but how good is it? Independent developers have an inclination to make their own thing instead of compromising and collaborating with others to work together, even when the world would be better off if they did the latter. The result is you end up with a million distros of Linux with incompatible package repository formats and incompatible binaries, a million IRC clients with incompatible scripting API, a million text editors with incompatible shortcuts, two display servers with incompatible API and protocols, a million shitty apps in smartphone app stores... All of them often with one better feature than the competition but lacking in other ways. All incompatible.
Even the community sometimes frowns upon duplicate effort or hostile forks. For example, the developers of Bitcoin won't *really* mind if you went and made your own Bitcoin implementation that was compatible with the network, but would warn you multiple times that it is absolutely essential to get the behavior of your implementation to be absolutely the same as their official client (down to the same bugs). The example of "two display servers" I gave above is of course Mir and Wayland, with Mir being a hostile Canonical initiative that is totally pointless and a backstabbing move on their part - They promised to contribute to Wayland, then instead stole bits and pieces from Wayland to make Mir, and spread misinformed lies about why they thought Wayland was not good enough for them. Now software, toolkits and distros have to make a choice between one or the other and the choice will of course make them incompatible with the other.
Of course I'm not advocating for no competition whatsoever. Sometimes it really is impossible to collaborate because "your" and "their" ideals really do differ to the point that "you"'d rather make a separate product from "them". Many distros and, for example, the fork of MPlayer to MPlayer2 to mpv, are testament to this. Natural selection does a *somewhat* good job of making unpopular or useless software fall into obscurity.
-
@Snooder said:
The part I take issue with is when he extends that to shitting on software that doesn't address his concerns or yelling in an extremely strident voice that all software should cater to his concerns.
My concern is "software can be used by human beings". If you don't meet that minimum standard, you deserve to be shat on.
-
@blakeyrat said:
My concern is "software can be used by human beings". If you don't meet that minimum standard, you deserve to be shat on.
Can I just be clear... did you mean "some human beings", "all human beings", "human beings like me", "whoever that I consider to be human beings", or what?
-
@TDWTF123 said:
@dhromed said:
I don't know where you're getting all that other random stuff.
I took your rather ill-considered argument to its logical extreme.Oh you mean you're trying to stick a slippery slope on me. Why didn't you say so? Stop taking things to their illogical extreme. It hurts communication. I want to keep believing that we're all discussing how to make a thing better.
@TDWTF123 said:
So what are you calling him a cunt for, then?
I'm saying that using the words "accessbility bullshit" practically voids any yak that comes after.
-
@Snooder said:
You don't really know that X is 'bad', you only know that you personally don't like it. So you want to not see it in the list of choices to make. However, for someone who isn't you, X isn't bad at all. In fact, it does exactly what he wants it to do in the way that he wants it to do it.
Are you seriously arguing that there's no such thing as objectively bad software? I know just the search program for you.
Most of the games covered in the aforementioned LP were barely worthy of the moniker "tech demo." They featured art that was either embarrassing to a first grader, directly plagiarized from other games, or (most frequently) both. They have no objectives, no story, barely any gameplay elements - just undeniably bad. (I know I just described Minecraft but no, these were not even good in an ironic or silly way, just So Bad It's Horrible.)
At least I'm happy I didn't buy an Ouya. I had given it consideration before and know I made the right choice.
-
@Arnavion said:
Natural selection does a *somewhat* good job of making unpopular or useless software fall into obscurity.
Hah! Natural Selection? Look around! Billions of species, almost every one a niche product, and almost all incompatible.
Okay maybe that metaphor is a bit strained.
-
@joe.edwards said:
Most of the games covered in the aforementioned LP were barely worthy of the moniker "tech demo." They featured art that was either embarrassing to a first grader, directly plagiarized from other games, or (most frequently) both. They have no objectives, no story, barely any gameplay elements - just undeniably bad. (I know I just described Minecraft but no, these were not even good in an ironic or silly way, just So Bad It's Horrible.)
The kind of games Lowtax let's plays, in other words.
-
Oh, hey, Lowtax! I was a fan of his like 8+ years ago. Blast from the past, for me.
I try to watch very good and very bad games in roughly equal measure. They both entertain me for very different reasons.
-
@Arnavion said:
@TDWTF123 said:
RMS and the GPL are full of shit. The GPL isn't about freedom, except in the Orwellian sense of the word.. It's about forcing a particular set of ideas on people. If the GPL was really about "freedom" then it would consist of exactly one sentence: "You are free to do whatever you want with this software".I'm rather unclear as to how you think it's 'free' to place restrictions on what someone can do. It clearly isn't. It's the opposite of freedom.
RMS and the GPL would like a word with you.
-
@El_Heffe said:
@Arnavion said:
@TDWTF123 said:
RMS and the GPL are full of shit. The GPL isn't about freedom, except in the Orwellian sense of the word.. It's about forcing a particular set of ideas on people. If the GPL was really about "freedom" then it would consist of exactly one sentence: "You are free to do whatever you want with this software".I'm rather unclear as to how you think it's 'free' to place restrictions on what someone can do. It clearly isn't. It's the opposite of freedom.
RMS and the GPL would like a word with you.
-
@joe.edwards said:
@El_Heffe said:
It has its own domain now?@Arnavion said:
@TDWTF123 said:
RMS and the GPL are full of shit. The GPL isn't about freedom, except in the Orwellian sense of the word.. It's about forcing a particular set of ideas on people. If the GPL was really about "freedom" then it would consist of exactly one sentence: "You are free to do whatever you want with this software".I'm rather unclear as to how you think it's 'free' to place restrictions on what someone can do. It clearly isn't. It's the opposite of freedom.
RMS and the GPL would like a word with you.
-
@joe.edwards said:
Here you go
@joe.edwards said:Filed under: There's also "I release this into the public domain."
And that's what the GPL would say, if RMS and the GPL advocates were honest and really cared about freedom. But they aren't. And they don't.
-
My main interest is just getting credited in places where my work is used. I guess basically CC BY though that's more commonly used for artistic works.
-
@joe.edwards said:
My main interest is just getting credited in places where my work is used. I guess basically CC BY though that's more commonly used for artistic works.
I tried to tell Mozilla to credit joe.edwards, but they just cleared their undo stack.
-
@boomzilla said:
@joe.edwards said:
My main interest is just getting credited in places where my work is used. I guess basically CC BY though that's more commonly used for artistic works.
I tried to tell Mozilla to credit joe.edwards, but they just cleared their undo stack.
I know! I keep emailing them. Excel clears its undo stack when you save.
-
@joe.edwards said:
@Snooder said:
You don't really know that X is 'bad', you only know that you personally don't like it. So you want to not see it in the list of choices to make. However, for someone who isn't you, X isn't bad at all. In fact, it does exactly what he wants it to do in the way that he wants it to do it.
Are you seriously arguing that there's no such thing as objectively bad software? I know just the search program for you.
Most of the games covered in the aforementioned LP were barely worthy of the moniker "tech demo." They featured art that was either embarrassing to a first grader, directly plagiarized from other games, or (most frequently) both. They have no objectives, no story, barely any gameplay elements - just undeniably bad. (I know I just described Minecraft but no, these were not even good in an ironic or silly way, just So Bad It's Horrible.)
At least I'm happy I didn't buy an Ouya. I had given it consideration before and know I made the right choice.
Yeah, I didn't buy a Ouya either. Why? Same reason I didn't get Onlive either. If it's too good too be true, you can bet your ass it's not actually true.
And yeah, I stick by my statement. See, I remember back when I was a kid and I'd play freeware games. Most of them were bad. Most of them were extremely derivative. Some of them didn't even run. But they were free, and playing them got me interested in computer games, and by extension computer programming. Since I'm an adult with a job who can pay for stuff now, I'd rather gouge my own eyes out than play shitty time-wasters. But that's me now. 15-20 years ago, I'd be overjoyed to have those same shitty time-wasters. Heck, I don't know how many hours I wasted playing Drug Wars on my TI-83 in middle school. It wasn't just a shitty game, it was an unfinished shitty clone of a shitty game played on a calculator with no graphics. And I had Diablo and Pokemon at the time, so it's not like I was all THAT starved for choice.
I'm sure there's someone out there for whom the Ouya is a great value proposition. And probably some of the shit games on the console would be beloved by someone out there. Maybe a kid or a guy in a third world country or something.
-
@blakeyrat said:
My concern is "software can be used by human beings". If you don't meet that minimum standard, you deserve to be shat on.
First Law of Software: Software may not injure its user or, through inaction, allow its user to come to harm.Second Law of Software: Software must perform the actions required of it by users, except where such actions would conflict with the First Law.
Third Law of Software: Software must protect its own usability as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.
Please feel free to pick at the above.
-
@joe.edwards said:
Here you go
@joe.edwards said:Filed under: There's also "I release this into the public domain."
Note that the whole point of making the WTFPL was that "I release this into the public domain." doesn't always work. See "Is the WTFPL a valid license?" in the FAQ and this SE answer and its comment.
-
@Arnavion said:
Note that the whole point of making the WTFPL was that "I release this into the public domain." doesn't always work. See "Is the WTFPL a valid license?" in the FAQ and this SE answer and its comment.
Wow, our work proxy allows the domain but blocks the FAQ page specifically. "Adult material"
-
@joe.edwards said:
@Arnavion said:
Note that the whole point of making the WTFPL was that "I release this into the public domain." doesn't always work. See "Is the WTFPL a valid license?" in the FAQ and this SE answer and its comment.
Wow, our work proxy allows the domain but blocks the FAQ page specifically. "Adult material"Trend Micro OfficeScan blocks the whole domain as "a potential security risk:"
The URL that you are attempting to access is a potential security risk. Trend Micro OfficeScan has blocked this URL in keeping with network security policy.
URL: http://www.wtfpl.net/
Risk Level: High
-
@El_Heffe said:
RMS and the GPL are full of shit.
Yes. He happens to be right on some things, but he's totally out of order in so many damn ways. He's totally focused on freedom of a certain kind, to the point where he argues that other sorts of freedom should be actively denied. He's a total fanatic.I also don't want to come anywhere near him physically.
-
@dhromed said:
'Slippery slope' isn't actually a fallacy. It may or may not be a bad argument. When phrased as a 'where do you draw the line' rhetorical question, as I in fact used it, it's perfectly valid. The answer that I thought was obviously implied was something much like 'where common-sense says it should'. My intention was to demonstrate that there is no clear boundary between those things done with the same principles as those underlying the idea of accessibility being good which are actually good, and those which are bad. Instead, we apply very old ideas of what is just and sensible.@TDWTF123 said:
@dhromed said:
I don't know where you're getting all that other random stuff.
I took your rather ill-considered argument to its logical extreme.Oh you mean you're trying to stick a slippery slope on me. Why didn't you say so? Stop taking things to their illogical extreme. It hurts communication. I want to keep believing that we're all discussing how to make a thing better.
@dhromed said:
I'm saying that using the words "accessbility bullshit" practically voids any yak that comes after.
A yak is a mountain buffalo or something. I think you mean 'yack'. Although as a producer of bullshit aside, I think a yak would be fairly irrelevant too.
Anyway, 'accessibility bullshit' is ambiguous. It could be taken to mean either bullshit about 'accessibility' - and as a matter of style I'd use 'scare quotes' there - or as meaning that all accessibility is bullshit. Based on the rest of the comments, I'd taken it to mean the former, and as a result rather tended towards the side of the argument I felt was being put forwards most correctly: that accessibility is a good thing right up to the point where it becomes bullshit.
-
@http://www.wtfpl.net/faq/ said:
Is the WTFPL a valid license?
Although the validity of the WTFPL has not been tested in courts, it is widely accepted as a valid license.
Isn’t this license basically public domain?
Unfortunately, the definition of public domain varies with the jurisdictions, and it is in some places debatable whether someone who has not been dead for the last seventy years is entitled to put their own work in the public domain.
-
@El_Heffe said:
@Arnavion said:
@TDWTF123 said:
RMS and the GPL are full of shit. The GPL isn't about freedom, except in the Orwellian sense of the word.. It's about forcing a particular set of ideas on people. If the GPL was really about "freedom" then it would consist of exactly one sentence: "You are free to do whatever you want with this software".I'm rather unclear as to how you think it's 'free' to place restrictions on what someone can do. It clearly isn't. It's the opposite of freedom.
RMS and the GPL would like a word with you.Christ almighty, are you people really that dense? The GPL is about freedom for the *user* of the software, not some downstream developer who wants to build on it. The GPL is about making sure the user of the software can run it for any purpose and can change the software to suit his needs. I know this isn't slashdot where this is common knowledge, but come on. You guys should know this. Then we can all talk about the difference between positive liberties and negative liberties and we can derail the thread again and start talking about politics.
-
@stinerman said:
Christ almighty, are you people really that dense? The GPL is about freedom for the user of the software, not some downstream developer who wants to build on it. The GPL is about making sure the user of the software can run it for any purpose and can change the software to suit his needs. I know this isn't slashdot where this is common knowledge, but come on. You guys should know this. Then we can all talk about the difference between positive liberties and negative liberties and we can derail the thread again and start talking about politics.
There's a difference between things that are clearly true, and things that are clearly true but which Stallman has endorsed. One can't agree with the latter. We can instead derail the thread talking about how Richard Stallman's personal habits are somewhat more disgusting than politics.
-
@stinerman said:
The GPL is about freedom for the *user* of the software, not some downstream developer who wants to build on it.
Bullshit. That "downstream developer" is also a user. If you are strictly a user of software then the GPL has no benefit to you other than being able to distribute software without getting sued. @stinerman said:The GPL is about making sure the user of the software can run it for any purpose
More RMS/GPL bullshit. I use 95% closed source software and have never been prevented from doing what I want to do. @stinerman said:and can change the software to suit his needs.
Users don't modify/recompile software. Programmers do. But programmers are also users. Studying, modifying and recompiling is their use of the software, which makes the GPL even more relevant to programmers than it is for users.
-
@TDWTF123 said:
@stinerman said:
Christ almighty, are you people really that dense? The GPL is about freedom for the user of the software, not some downstream developer who wants to build on it. The GPL is about making sure the user of the software can run it for any purpose and can change the software to suit his needs. I know this isn't slashdot where this is common knowledge, but come on. You guys should know this. Then we can all talk about the difference between positive liberties and negative liberties and we can derail the thread again and start talking about politics.
There's a difference between things that are clearly true, and things that are clearly true but which Stallman has endorsed. One can't agree with the latter. We can instead derail the thread talking about how Richard Stallman's personal habits are somewhat more disgusting than politics.
That thing he peeled off his foot and ate... shudder
Scarred for life.
-
@joe.edwards said:
@Arnavion said:
I'm guessing it's the "But profanity is offensive!" section that's triggered that.Note that the whole point of making the WTFPL was that "I release this into the public domain." doesn't always work. See "Is the WTFPL a valid license?" in the FAQ and this SE answer and its comment.
Wow, our work proxy allows the domain but blocks the FAQ page specifically. "Adult material"
-
@TDWTF123 said:
that accessibility is a good thing right up to the point where it becomes bullshit.
I have been enlightened.
It's difficult to respond to a philosopher without sarcasm.
-
@TDWTF123 said:
Anyway, 'accessibility bullshit' is ambiguous. It could be taken to mean either bullshit about 'accessibility' - and as a matter of style I'd use 'scare quotes' there - or as meaning that all accessibility is bullshit. Based on the rest of the comments, I'd taken it to mean the former, and as a result rather tended towards the side of the argument I felt was being put forwards most correctly: that accessibility is a good thing right up to the point where it becomes bullshit.
[Breathes out, happy in the knowledge that at least someone gets it]
Obviously I don't have a problem with accessibility if people wish to add it to their software; that should be their choice.
-
@HardwareGeek said:
Trend Micro OfficeScan blocks the whole domain as "a potential security risk:"
Trend at our office is complaining that the favicon.ico is "dangerous". Fucking irritating software. It also sees gzipped js files as dangerous.
-
@http://www.wtfpl.net/faq/ said:
Unfortunately, the definition of public domain varies with the jurisdictions, and it is in some places debatable whether someone who has not been dead for the last seventy years is entitled to put their own work in the public domain.
I believe CC0 is intended to address the variance between jurisdictions to some extent.
-
@scudsucker said:
Trend at our office is complaining that the favicon.ico is "dangerous". Fucking irritating software. It also sees gzipped js files as dangerous.
We're running Trend at work, and it likes to mark random attachment-less plain-text e-mails as dangerous and stuff them into .txt attachments (it really likes to do this with e-mails from one person sent to a certain mailing list). It also likes to block incoming authenticated SMTP connections when they come from disreputable network blocks (we have one user that travels around a lot, and sometimes uses public WiFi spots, and he's getting blocked when sending e-mails).
-
Maybe it's because I was in college in the early 70's, but somehow "referer" sounds like an awkward term for "pot head". But I guess you'd spell that "reeferer". :P
-
@joe.edwards said:
That thing he peeled off his foot and ate... shudder
I was trying very hard not to think of that.
Scarred for life.
-
@dkf said:
@joe.edwards said:
That thing he peeled off his foot and ate... shudder
I was trying very hard not to think of that.
Scarred for life.I could have happily continued my existence without ever witnessing that. I blame all of you.
-
@eViLegion said:
@dkf said:
I am happy that I did not witness that. I would have been even happier had I remained ignorant that such an event ever occured.@joe.edwards said:
That thing he peeled off his foot and ate... *shudder*
I was trying very hard not to think of that.
Scarred for life.I could have happily continued my existence without ever witnessing that. I blame all of you.
-
@HardwareGeek said:
@eViLegion said:
@dkf said:
I am happy that I did not witness that. I would have been even happier had I remained ignorant that such an event ever occured.@joe.edwards said:
That thing he peeled off his foot and ate... shudder
I was trying very hard not to think of that.
Scarred for life.I could have happily continued my existence without ever witnessing that. I blame all of you.
Stallman's toejam is the goatse of the tech world. It's a rite of passage. You aren't "in" until you know about it.
-
@Arnavion said:
Stallman's toejam is the goatse of the tech world. It's a rite of passage. You aren't "in" until you know about it.
Fortunately, knowing about it does not require actually witnessing it; otherwise, I would choose to remain "out." As for goatse, I have known about it longer than some of the younger inhabitants of this forum have been alive, but thankfully never actually observed it, either.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@joe.edwards said:
Most of the games covered in the aforementioned LP were barely worthy of the moniker "tech demo." They featured art that was either embarrassing to a first grader, directly plagiarized from other games, or (most frequently) both. They have no objectives, no story, barely any gameplay elements - just undeniably bad. (I know I just described Minecraft but no, these were not even good in an ironic or silly way, just So Bad It's Horrible.)
The kind of games Lowtax let's plays, in other words.
Wow. SA was funny but his Let's Plays are boring as shit.
-
@Alargule said:
Just a little pet peeve of mine.
I had a pet peeve once, but I forgot to feed it, and it died...
-
@blakeyrat said:
What's the point of writing software you don't expect anybody to use?
If you do expect people to use it, why wouldn't you make it as accessible as possible? Because it's slightly more work? Oh poor baby.
I think it's kind of pointless to make a page of a car dealership accessible for blind people.
