Pretty sure the Californian authority is not a copper DSL religious cult. If you actually read the article, the regulations they are citing are built for vulnerable communities to protect them from for-profit utility providers from cutting them off by shutting down old but only available way to provide internet to the people.

Wireless is not a fix-all solution, and can be unreliable and bandwidth limited for dense areas.

This message is sent to you by someone whose utility provider decided to do exactly what you wish and now is stuck with wireless towers that completely go down if there's any heightened usage (tourism, people moving in, and so on) or pretty much randomly (and since the infrastructure is not built yet, the company's nearest branch is nowhere near me), if you move too quickly, go to a room the tower doesn't properly reach (yes can be fixed, but now the burden of cost is on the person not the company), and many more issues that arise when 'wireless towers' are provided instead of actual internet cables that might be slower, older and more expensive for the provider but much more reliable, stable and actually working most of the time.

Smart phones and their consequences have been a disaster for the human race.

Backporting security and bug fixes is a responsible and reasonable measure taken by any software that actually respects its users ESPECIALLY when a new breaking update is released. You failed at bullying a stranger with valid concerns. Try to bring reason with you next time before you decide to be rude and condescending.

Fairphone, Librem, PinePhone, f(x)tec, etc. are available alternatives, yes.

Even a OnePlus is better than directly funding and supporting the adversary organisation that is one of the biggest surveillance capitalism corporations on earth.

I keep seeing this idea everywhere. Buy a Google phone and install another OS.

It is completely absurd to fund the exact adversaries you are running away from, while consuming, without contributing a dime, merely a piece of free software. (It is only a small piece of freedom because none of the hardware is free, and some binary blobs [incl. potential backdoors] will still be present in the alternative OS no matter which one it is.)

This is unsustainable, terrible, damaging advice. Stop giving it.

73 million for a few years of a defederated Mastodon fork. Yeah, totally not fraud.

How about you read the one link you are commenting on before asking for another? It is in the article.

"Let the votes decide the quality of the content" is capitalist rhetoric that was the start of reddit's end. It is not an argument, it is not a principle to stand behind, and it most definitely is not a better alternative to guidelines the community can vote on.

I am aware of the difference in philosophy taken by both Gnome and KDE, but would you mind elaborating on the 'assholes' bit?

Not gonna happen, the developer made it quite clear from the get-go. Also, their community are quite hostile against it and pretty much most FOSS stuff for some reason.

I can see a fork taking what is useful about it (UI/UX) and adopting solid backends (federation, proper VoIP with screen sharing, etc.)

...and kids, this is why you (A)GPLv3 your code. Always.

They "don't" allow it, that's how licenses work.

I keep seeing comments like these on source available nonfree software, but it really doesn't factor in the fact that older software is NOT going to be used due to bugs, features missing, technical debt, secuity vulnerabilities, etc. So unless it is forked (i.e: OpenTofu), it is as good as useless for everyone but hobbyists.