Rebel Bricked Road

Earth itself is moving around the sun at about100,000 km/h and the sun is traveling through the galaxy st about 1 million km/h.

So if Marty went back/forward just one hour then he’d be about 1,100,000 kilometers away from Earth in space (or 900,000 kilometers, depending on the orbital direction of Earth relative to the sun’s direction of travel).

And then there’s the motion and speed of the Milkyway itself.

This is all assuming that the layout of the underlying fabric of spacetime is absolute (which it seems to be, outside of expansion).

Now what about time travel?

Technically, Marty McFly should have appeared in space far from anything instead of old man Peabody’s Pine farm.

No, I meant the wording of you comment is terrible

Ok, sure. You can. You can also just be completely wrong at the same time.

Your comment doesn’t make sense to me.

That’s going to vary heavily based on regional laws. You cannot make such a blanket statement like that.

Ok, then it’s time to jump to another platform

Again, 100% your prerogative. No one is forced to use any of your software. The only time you must fix it is if you have a contract that outlines those conditions or you are selling licenses to customers in the EU.

There’s no equivalent to a licensed civil engineer in programming.The proper analogy is just anyone putting up those plans.

Why do you keep adding new parameters to these analogies? It’s such a simple concept but you are determined to prove your opinion, that the devs should acquiesce to your point of view, no matter what.

And if you find one of my github projects that will cause a user to violate a local law, kindly file an issue and I’ll update the README.md / consider taking it down until the issue is fixed.

100% your prerogative.

If you want to apply such a better definition, then you have an obligation to learn Rust and submit a PR to bring the project into compliance. You have a societal obligation since you are aware of the issue and use Lemmy.

You owe it to your fellow Lemmites. Lemurs? Lemmings? Whatever the term for a Lemmy user is.

Hell if they just build a playground off in the woods on their own private land but don’t take reasonable steps to prevent kids from accessing or using it then they will have their license revoked.

Sure, but if you want to extend the analogy that far, then the devs are just posting free plans online on how to build a playground. It’s the instance owners who physically build the “playground” and are liable.

Fine, that’s what matters. Then ask them to implement it or write it yourself.

And if they say no, then that’s your answer and Lemmy instances within the EU will need to move out of the EU or just shut down.

Are they allowed to do that?

Actually yes. The people that run afoul of the GDPR are the people who run the instance servers. The code writers are not the ones legally responsible.

Are they in the EU? No? Then they don’t need that permission.

Is it entitlement if it’s making using the entire thing illegal everywhere?

No. It’s the dev’s project. They can do whatever they want with it. They can delete the repo and go live in the woods if they want.

To be clear, I don’t agree with the stance they have taken. But I also see the kind of reactions there are far from what people are making it out to be. I think the people complaining about the devs being “mean” are just hypersensitive and have never been told “no” their whole lives.

Like I said, I disagree with the devs’ position to not implement this feature. It’s been highly requested, and for good reason. But this is a free project. If they say no, then it’s no. If we don’t like that decision, then maybe we need to move somewhere else.

It sucks but sometimes that’s life.

Yes, there are, and that obligation is to not publish something as production ready if it is illegal to use because of how it’s built.

No, there really isn’t. Do I feel that project owners should follow good practices for maintaining clean code that also allows users to keep things legal? Absolutely I do.

But that is not the same thing as an obligation. If there was a single cent exchanged between the devs and anyone else (donations do not count) then this conversation would be entirely different.

I don’t agree with the devs’ stance. But it is 100% their prerogative to say no. It’s their project, not ours.

I’m a software developer, I understand exactly how frustrating user demands are

As am I.

that was still a completely and utterly unacceptable way to respond to a very politely worded request

I agree.

As the commenter pointed out, if you don’t want to fix it, fine, but then you absolutely have a moral, ethical, and professional obligation to document that clearly in your README.md.

No, you absolutely do not. Although I do somewhat agree on the professional part, but it’s still not an obligation. It’s completely unprofessional, but that’s different than it being an obligation.

It is not entitled to expect a published project to comply with basic privacy legislation and not be illegal to use.

No it’s not. But what is entitlement is bombarding voluntary devs with garbage requests. Is this particular issue entitlement? No. But having seen the various requests made over the last year or so there’s a breaking point where a person gets overly sensitive.

Think of being pestered ALL day at work over garbage and having an all around bad day. Then on the way home you jump into a store to pick something up and someone says something annoying but ultimately innocuous to you. Some people can handle it in stride, some people’s nerves get frayed.

I’m not excusing the devs here. I don’t actually know what their thoughts are. But from personal experience in the dev world and from what I’ve seen, it looks to me like they’re getting frustrated by users.

And they might be in a region where the privacy concerns don’t apply to them. And I agree that it’s a problem, but ultimately it’s their right and prerogative to not implement.

Remember, absolutely no one here has paid a single CENT to the devs for their work (not talking about donations).

So complaining about the quality of their work while you are benefiting from it for free is literally entitlement.

steal code from non-opensource projects, ignore licenses and do other shit like that

That’s a lot of incorrect assumptions there.

They didn’t steal any code. They didn’t ignore licenses either. In fact, the only reason they had a judgment ruled against them is because they were taking monetary donations. Which was interpreted as “profiting”.

They reverse engineered a process without stealing anything. They didn’t even circumvent DRM, which is actually protected by law on the grounds of creating personal backups and data/software preservation.

You’re either very ignorant on the subject or you just ate up Nintendo’s BS.