Out of curiosity, why do you care if CCC uses affiliate links? Not trying to troll, just genuinely curious. I figure if CCC gets a bit of a kickback on something that's fair for me using their site as a means of keeping it going.
Possibly it would be an incentive that is not aligned with the user's interests. For example, CCC would do anything in their power to get you to buy something so that they get a cut. Whereas a user would maybe be most interested in getting a good value, or even not buying anything at all might be their best choice.
Of course you as a consumer could also act and decide on your own.
I'd understand if the grand parent poster refused to use price alerts at all, maybe in order to avoid unnecessary purchases, but GP argued that a different service is better because it doesn't use affiliate links, which seems rather strange to me. After all you get an alert for a product you chose at a specific price you defined. The use of affiliate links doesn't change anything in this arrangement.
Usually it's gotten around because astronomical images are stacks of many integrations, and then you dither around. If you take 10 5-minute exposures, for example, and you dither around correctly, you might have a bunch of pixels with 9/10 or 8/10 data values... then you stack the images and weight those pixels accordingly.
Especially in the context of a small business of just 6 folks... yes, I think keeping tabs on your email is understandable.
There are 10 people that work for my company... half of them engineers like myself. It's expected that we aren't completely disconnected on vacation... but at least available if a true emergency crops up that needs our niche expertise.
That said, my boss is awesome and encourages healthy work-life separation, so stuff has to really escalate before you're expected to jump in...
We can be friendly without having to compromise freedom. We don't have to be friendly to those who would want to use our software to take freedom away from others. We should be friendly to everyone who wants to use our software freely, regardless of their skill level.
My view is that GNU should be working towards making sure we can get our software into as many people as possible by giving it an attractive interface, simple installation instructions, and a welcoming community, while at the same time refusing to collaborate with any who wish to proliferate non-free software.
> We don't have to be friendly to those who would want to use our software to take freedom away from others. We should be friendly to everyone who wants to use our software freely, regardless of their skill level.
"We should be friendly, unless we don't like the people using our software"
In the specific case of free software, the paradox of tolerance plays out concretely, in that failure to enforce copyleft on software can lead to the creation of software derived from that work that is itself copyrighted in such a way that the deriver could sue an original source creator deriving work from their derivations.
I don't think anyone would consider copyleft enforcement "friendly," but the alternative is "free software has no ability to protect its core tenants," so some friendliness must be abridged.
I agree that enforcing copyleft licenses is extremely necessary. My thought here was that "those who would want to use our software to take freedom away from others" is a bit too broad to apply to just that, especially when considering things like the recent Chef outage.
In other words - some people are going to use GNU software to take freedom from others (imagine a prison running Linux, etc) in ways that conform with the license. I do not think GNU should oppose this.
And your first friendly act is to 'friendly' take control of the organisation someone else built to host you. That opens a whole perspective of refreshing friendlyism.
Thanks for the photos. You can tell that they are nice items and -- coming from the perspective of an American -- don't look "government issued" in the slightest. Neat.
I'm a SAML consultant. I help IdPs become "good" IdPs, and I help SPs become "good" SPs. Both sides are usually bad in some way or another, and both sides usually want to shift the blame to the other side as soon as they can.
The number of times I've been CC'd on a terse email from one admin to another saying it's the other guys fault after I've clearly told them the list of things on their side that could be causing the issue is pretty much uncountable at this point.
