It was a fucking toddler trapped in the car you moron.

It couldn't be opened manually from the outside.

It was a fucking toddler trapped in the car you moron.

I'm sorry but when the Quran makes it out that the sun and moon both orbit Earth when that is very clearly false I can't take it seriously.

Copying from a comment I made on Reddit:

The Quran is considered the unchanging word of Allah passed down to Muhammed by Gabriel. But then what does it mean when the Quran is demonstrably wrong? Well, it means Islam falls apart as the "word of Allah" is disproven.

For example, I'm going to note a verse from the Quran which reveals the Quran's model of the solar system:

"It is not for the sun to overtake the moon, nor doth the night outstrip the day. They float each in an orbit." (Quran 36:40)

I've picked this verse because typically when the Quran conflicts with well-known, proven, modern fact and science, the defense from Muslims is that it's metaphorical in some way (how convenient). But here not even the metaphorical interpretation makes sense, so its a good verse to solidly disprove.

First, the literal interpretation:

The idea of "overtaking" and the sun and moon's inability to do so requires the two objects (in this case, the sun and moon) to be moving along roughly the same path/direction (or in the case of celestial objects, the same orbit), else the sentence makes no sense. Following this, this means that according to the Quran, the sun and moon follow the same orbit, an orbit around Earth (i.e. an Earth-centred solar system). This isn't true, and is easily proven nowadays.

The metaphorical interpretation:

If we take "overtaking" to mean appearing to cross over in the sky and not literal overtaking, well, that's still wrong. Because exactly that happens during a solar eclipse. The moon appears to overtake the sun in the sky, crossing over it and eclipsing it in the process. So the metaphorical interpretation is also incorrect.

As we can see, no matter which way we decide to interpret this verse, literal or metaphorical, it's wrong. The "word of Allah" is wrong, and Islam crumbles.

The difference is I disbelieve because I've read portions of the Quran and found logical faults/inconsistencies which can't be made by an omnipotent being and you believe because... ??

to many believers that is the truth

No? Just because some people believe it doesn't make it true. That's like saying because many people believe you can see the great wall of China from space, that it's true.

A millenium-old book which makes grand claims with no real evidence (and many things wrong!) to back them up so a pedo warlord could live a life of relative luxury with his several wives and conquer Arabia does not count as evidence by the way.

the butterfly effect for example why it is not possible

... The butterfly effect is well proven and very easy to see with simply a double pendulum.

Are you telling me what I can see right in front of me does not exist?

it is his choice, for how to exercise his love

Or to never exercise it at all clearly. Maybe it's because he doesn't exist?

Muslims believe that he is most loving so when we don't see it in this world the assumption is that we will get it in the hereafter.

Very convenient way of explaining away the fact that good things and bad things happen randomly and/or as a direct result of human actions, not as a result of "Allah" choosing how to "exercise love".

This world is not a place for justice and neither is it fair, for we get it in the hereafter.

How do you know that? There is zero real proof and any "proof" in Islam has been well and truly debunked. You can't just take an old book at it's word you know.

cannot say that this action is bad because you do not possess the ability

But Allah is infinite therefore he possesses this ability

What is "this ability" you're talking about? And Allah doesn't exist, sorry to break it to you.

That said, I feel for the families of the people who died.

Love the hand-waving here to justify that if your "Allah" exists (he doesn't, there's plenty of plot holes in the Quran), he's clearly not so loving.

Most Wise, Most Loving, Most High (probably on weed)

Point to the comment in this chain where we aren't talking about what JSO is/should be doing before I got involved, then. With a quote and a link.

PS there's only one comment before mine and yours and it's talking about what JSO "should" do. I'll save you time:

https://lemmy.world/comment/10732265

Ffs just blow up a pipeline or sabotage parts of their infrastructure or follow the higher ups home and deface their homes

I see you have nothing else to say so jumped to ad hominem instead.

In this thread we're talking about the effectiveness of JSOs methods and what they "should do" instead.

From context, it's clear that it'd be UK action, considering JSO is a UK group.

No, it's the definition the Open Source Initiative has used since their inception.

Which.. split off from the FSF and the software freedom movement. And that term was never used before they created it. They literally defined it and started it's use.

They are just one of many open source communities with their own licenses.

Again, established definition. Stop trying to legitimise your self-concocted definition of "open source".

That would be "crime".

A felony is a type of crime which doesn't exist here.

You can't just get upset if someone points out you've used a word wrong. Words have meanings and while getting it wrong, especially as a second language, isn't bad, it's still incorrect and can be confusing (e.g. most people would assume you're talking about US law when you talk about felonies).

This is the UK. "Felonies" 🙄

But yeah it's a lot more severe and they'd probably be out of activism forever.

"destroy heritage sites"

It's cornflour lmfao. It's probably been washed away by now.

you can't expect to enforce the definition you like on everyone

It is literally the definition which has been used since the term's conception when the open source movement split off from the software freedom movement. It is a well established term with a well established meaning. Just because you don't want to use that meaning doesn't mean it isn't the correct and most widely recognised. Its not that I like the definition, it's that it is the primary definition and always has been.

If someone posts their source code publicly, it's open source.

Uh, no. That's called "source-available". Terms have meanings. And from the day the words "open source" started being used, this definition is what defined them: https://opensource.org/osd

You can't just redefine an established term because it's inconvenient to your argument.

It's unreasonable to ask them to review and maintain every PR

Good thing being free/open source doesn't require that, then? It basically just requires the users be free to make their own modifications and distribute them. No requirement for public development involvement at all, really. It's standard practice but by no means necessary.

If you want to fork it and make changes for yourself, you can

They can terminate your license for any reason or no reason (stated in the license) making your fork in violation of copyright law :).

In other words, they can take down your fork if they feel like it. Making the ability to fork useless.

literally the only qualification for something to be open source ...

Again, terms have established meanings. See above.

It's also unreasonable to be upset if they tell you you're not allowed to take their work and re-sell it for your own profit.

I don't see how this paragraph relates to my point at all. Is it about the NewPipe paid clones? Because they were illegal anyways (copyleft violation), no egregious license needed.

But as you said, NewPipe is also copyleft, and it seems like you don't have a problem with that. So I don't really understand what your issue is with Grayjay/FUTO.

What do you mean "also copyleft"? Are you implying the GrayJay license is copyleft? Because it absolutely isn't. Again, established term, definition: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/copyleft.en.html

And finally, here's some particularly nasty parts of the license, which funilly enough you don't ever see in free/open source licenses (because they're horribly restrictive terms):

"If you issue proceedings in any jurisdiction against the provider because you consider the provider has infringed copyright or any patent right in respect of the code (including any joinder or counterclaim), your license to the code is automatically terminated."

"We may suspend, terminate or vary the terms of this license and any access to the code at any time, without notice, for any reason or no reason, in respect of any licensee, group of licensees or all licensees including as may be applicable any sub-licensees."

That word... I do not think it means what you think it means...

If a small group annoying you pushes you towards not caring about the climate, you never cared about the climate.

Supposedly. Supposedly they also weren't going to ignore the standard and do their own thing but I guess this disproves that.

Advertised as "open source", violates several key parts of the open source definition. It's really a "look but don't touch" thing.

And you do realise ANY copyleft license (GPL, etc) prevents the creation of nonfree applications using that code? Making the app proprietary (yes, GrayJay counts as proprietary) is completely unnecessary.

I know Rossmann brought up NewPipe fakes on the Play Store as justification, but NewPipe is licensed under the GPL. These fakes were already illegal.