We don’t need to presume anything, OP can speak for themselves.

Sure they can! Until they do, there’s my helpful take for the meantime.
But don’t take my word for it, you could also piece together their intent by them thanking all the other helpful responses in this thread that happen to elaborate on legal obligations 😄

What do you mean by this?

Many things in life come with legal, moral or financial requirements and obligations. The OP presumably wishes to know whether there are any that they might not yet have considered in their situation.

i absolutely disagree. the way insurance works is you all pay into it and they use that money for claims. it’s literally our money.

Again, you do not “pay into” anything. There’s no pool or fund or growing personal account. You buy a service. There is an exchange of goods and services here. As you receive the service, the money ceases to be yours.
Whether or not other people file claims with the insurance doesn’t matter, just like it doesn’t matter whether or not the baker buys new furniture after selling bread to you. They’re not paying the furniture store with your money, they’re paying the furniture store with their own money that became theirs as soon as you relinquished it to them in exchange for the bread.

On every single professional sports game I’ve ever seen, every single show, every single channel. Isn’t this our fucking money you’re meant to give out should, god forbid, something happen?

While there’s certainly no redeeming feature to be found in the advertising industry, I feel like you might be missing the point of insurance. An insurance does not safe-keep “your” money. You pay insurance for a service, you then receive the service and your money is gone, spent, as if you had bought groceries. The service you receive is what is called “coverage” but what is more easily thought of as “immunity against bankruptcy due to X”, X being the insurance case. That’s what you buy.

Figuring out how to best allocate the money is up to the insurance - it’s their money, after all.

Unless it can natively run all the existing ready-to-go Pi images and software packages and will also receive community support when I ask for help in a Pi-adjacent forum it’s not really going to be a competitor to the Pi. The hardware is pretty much irrelevant.

what? no! licenses are how authors are deciding to grant specific permissions on their copyright.

Sure. But that does not contradict what I wrote.

that is like saying because you found a book in a library you have the choice to copy it and sell it.

That is precisely the choice one has. It’s a choice one doesn’t have when one doesn’t know the contents of the book or when they are confronted with closed-source software.

the fact that source is available does not grant any permission besides looking at it.

Yes I agree. “Making the choice” would require making it without the author’s permission.
But again, I’m not talking about permissions as I don’t really consider them to be nearly as important as availability and ability. One has the ability to modify/use code with the source and without permission one does not have the ability to modify/use code without the source and with permission.

So yes, Libre is nice, but the source-open aspect is always the most important component.

I’m getting brain damage from this thread. So many stupid people here.

2010 called, it wants its vaguebooking back 😜

But in all seriousness, if you have grievances or consider any particular piece of information that you stumble upon to be incorrect then you need to either point that out specifically or refrain from commenting - otherwise you’re actively confusing and deteriorating a conversation, that’s not good.

The source code from windows have been leaked a few times already. Try repackaging it or redistributing with modifications, see how far it will go before you get sued into oblivion.

I’m not really sure what you mean here, it has been modified and redistributed vigorously ever since its leak.

“Suing a random internet person on the other side of the world” is rarely a successful proposition. In order for that to work there would have to be incentive, jurisdiction and a lack of anonymity :P

I personally nerver really understood the whole semantics debate that always unfolds in situations like this. What does it matter if a piece of software is truly libre or how it is licensed as long as the source code is available? Respecting a license is a choice. If you have the code you can fork it. Whether it’s libre or not only influences your ability to put your real name under the fork, doesn’t it?

Thanks for humoring me!

Well, the info promotes options people can do to fight climate change. It says less children is the best option. Right now eco-activists blame and attack people for using cars and planes, they promote laws to restrict this kind of things. In few years they will blame attack mothers with 2 children and promote birth restrictions laws.

How many children to have - is a personal decision made considering many different reasons. What I find not acceptable is - promoting/advertising/pushing people to have less children because to protect climate. Like: “you have a 2 children? You are a shitty person killing our planet - much worse then a guy flying private jet!”

I always find it helpful to try and decouple everything from value judgements as best as possible - in that regard I find it hard to read any kind of “blame” or accusations of “being a shitty person” into that graphic. I mean, it’s just a fancy spreadsheet, isn’t it? “This kind of choice entails that kind of impact”.

Assuming that the data and the estimates themselves are reasonable and correct then it wouldn’t seem too far-fetched to accept that avoiding a transatlantic flight is a more impactful decision for one’s carbon footprint than life-long dutiful recycling. I mean at that point it’s just comparing numbers and it would seem to be rather objective and judgement-free to say “A person choosing to live their life without a car has made a bigger impact on their carbon footprint with that decision than than a person choosing to replace that car with a hybrid” or, conversely, “A person choosing to live their life with one fewer children has made a bigger impact on their carbon footprint with that decision than a person choosing to recycle” - wouldn’t it?

Or let’s do it the other way around: What would you change about that graphic to make it more acceptable in your eyes? Would you just leave out the last column or do something completely different with the data?

Agree. But promoting/pushing childfree as a responsible answer for a climat issue as the next option after carefree does not make sense either for the same reason.

I’m not sure I follow - are you saying that you would consider a family with two children to have made a less acceptable/responsible decision than a family with three children (or zero/one, one/two, … etc.)?
I mean if so then I certainly don’t want you to feel uncomfortable talking about it, it’s just that I’ve never encountered that kind of outlook before, so it’s a bit of an unexpected turn in the conversation for me. Could you elaborate on what you mean?

Why they stopped on “one less child”? I’m pretty sure that a suicide is the best thing a person can do to fight against climate change.

Advice doesn’t make much sense within some kind of shared ethics framework, otherwise you just end up with a reward function for some kind of rampaging AI.
That’s likely why this collection of personal choices doesn’t list “kill yourself” or “kill others” - because it doesn’t consider them to be acceptable personal choices. And surely neither do you.

Do you get a public IP with Starlink?

You’ve very likely already encountered it if you have a device with a SIM card! Most any mobile provider routes via a CGNAT - it’s exceedingly rare for phones to have public IPs.