I mean many US States or regions are not that much different. There's homeless shelters, and the state helps you find a job.
Which country is this that has no homeless?
EDIT: Informative comments below have convinced me that the license change is worth worrying about, and this fork is worth supporting.
The new license does not really affect the average person. Only companies offering terraform as a hosted service.
In nodejs, at least, it does. The minification and tree-shaking can make code significantly smaller. This can mean smaller cold start time in AWS Lambda for example, or just overall a little less RAM. If your heap isn't that large, that can be noticeable.
It also eliminates the filesystem overhead of resolving and loading modules.
My issue with lutris is that when I used it before and something didn't work, or used to work but broke, I was completely at a loss, because I did not understand what all it is doing exactly. It just felt that what lutris is doing is a bit too obfuscated or unclear to me.
Is bottles any better on that front?
If I just use the flatpak as is, does it already provide filesystem isolation akin to a chroot? I dont need it to be incredibly secure, just some basic isolation is enough for me. I just want the installation to be easily reversible rather than having to track down installed files. Lutris installs a lot of stuff outside of the package manager, so I figured filesystem isolation would provide easy means of undoing everything it does
I agree with that commenter. I do not claim that "nothing happened". I said this in my earlier comments, that I just don't think it's a problem worth my attention.
My issue with this definition is how vague it is.
You first start by talking about marrying liberalism and minarchism. I assumed you meant that as an intro and less as a definition, but if you meant it as a definition, I would need to understand: what of liberalism and what of minarchy are you taking? Should I just take the Wikipedia definition and trust that you'll follow it?
You then said maximizing rights and freedoms of the individual, and minimize the size of the state.
The reason I think that is vague: what size is small enough? Some see States in modern Western nations as small, not intervening as much in personal matters compared to the 3rd world, and they offer many freedoms in comparison. But some view them as too big. If you left that up to the reader to decide, then some will call the US small enough, at least in its internal politics.
And then which rights are necessary? Some view the right to religion important, while others view the right to not have to deal with religion to be core, like in France recently not allowing hijabs in school. Is the right to hate speech required? Is the right to be noisy to my neighbor required? Who even decides and enforces that?
Thanks!
Plenty of evidence cited there from multiple sources. You don't have to open it, but the evidence is there shall you question it.
Reading comprehension. Learn it.
Can you please tone down the unnecessary aggression? I understand politics can be sensitive but we prefer to keep this place civil.
I like open source because of how it affects ordinary individuals. I am not very concerned for businesses. In fact I'd prefer that businesses profitting from free software must profit share with the creators. It would ensure the longevity of the project.