Getting paid in money is one motivation for people, but not the only one. Some people do things because they want to, regardless of payment. And some of them want to give what they made as a gift to anyone. The flip side is that no one can force them to do anything, it’s all voluntary.

The author of JSLint wrote:
"So I added one more line to my license, was that, “the Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.” And thought: I’ve done my job!
/…/
Also about once a year, I get a letter from a lawyer, every year a different lawyer, at a company. I don’t want to embarrass the company by saying their name, so I’ll just say their initials, “IBM,” saying that they want to use something that I wrote, 'cause I put this on everything I write now. They want to use something that I wrote and something that they wrote and they’re pretty sure they weren’t gonna use it for evil, but they couldn’t say for sure about their customers. So, could I give them a special license for that?

So, of course!

So I wrote back—this happened literally two weeks ago—I said, “I give permission to IBM, its customers, partners, and minions, to use JSLint for evil.” "

Isn’t it a bit arbitrary to just divide time into generations like this? It makes more sense for big events in history, like the world wars, but now, I don’t know. According to this I am a millennial, but what does that mean really? That I saw the internet become what it is now? Not a very defining thing for a whole generation imho.

There are some old interviews with George RR Martin where people ask him about various characters, and GRRM would adjust his pronounciation to match the person asking the question. So he’s pronouncing names differently in different interviews depending on how others pronounce them. I wonder if it is to make the other person comfortable, or if he just doesn’t have a canon pronounciation.

A good story about a bad day doesn’t have to be about complaining. It can be about learning from mistakes, a strange irony, the absurdity of coinciding factors, etc.

Glad midsommar! Hade ni något regn med?

I guess it becomes a matter of strategy. Maybe progressive women aren’t the ones who need to hear it the most, and they may feel offended at the suggestion that other women could be part of reinforcing the patriarchy. It mirrors the way men are asked to shut down other mens sexist remarks and actions. I’m sure such behavior is prevalent, but I never witness it. So the question to me is, how do we communicate this whole thing to women as a group? The ones willing to listen aren’t the ones who need to hear it, and the ones who need to hear it are probably not willing to listen.

Yes, that’s a good point. And maybe sort of the reason I’m interested in these topics, is trying to figure out how to influence the social circles around me.

I agree that those are sane approaches. I do think that there can be immediate unintended consequences. If someone didn’t pay for a meal, there’s propably less chance of a second date. Etc.
I imagine women went through similar consequences while entering traditionally masculine jobs and behavior.
What I’m getting at is that I think that we often think that this pressure is all in our minds, and to some extent that’s true, but there are many stories of men opening up and being vulnerable and then their partners lose attraction. That’s a hard sell to young men. “Yes, you will be alone forever, but it’s necessary because in a couple of generations from now things might be better.”

By refusing to take part in the hierarchy of dominance you will eventually be subject to a more general and, frankly, human set of standards.

You mention some examples, like defending your partner from a mugger, calling out your boss when treated unfairly, paying for meals, etc.
Let’s say a man stopped doing those things, what do you think the immediate and short term consequences would be?

Om någon undrade så är rollatorn en Gemino 20.

Hm, ok. Då är väl frågan snarare vem som ligger bakom att skynda igenom frågan? Det ligger nära till hands att tänka att det är för att man vill slippa debatt. Att man i efterhand kan säga “nämen oj, allt gick så snabbt, men nu är det bara så, vi kan inte ändra på något”.

Om man är lite konspiratorisk är det lätt att tänka att man hoppar över omröstningen för att sedan kunna säga att man inte röstat för förslaget, alla kan peka på alla andra.

Det verkar som att det inte var någon omröstning, men att C och SD sagt att de var emot förslaget. Hon från V som var där skrev på twitter att V fortfarande var emot, hur man nu ska tolka det.

Är det här rätt sida tror du? https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/betankande/preventiva-tvangsmedel-for-att-forebygga-och_hb01juu24/
Jag vet inte riktigt hur man ska tolka den.

Aha, tack. Det ser inte bra ut.

Det var en valfråga för mig med. Hela idén med demokrati gungar ju lite om man kan ljuga hur som helst innan ett val utan konsekvenser.

Men för i helvete, jag röstade på V precis för att de var emot.

It’s fair, but different people have different ideas about what they want, and in the end it’s the authors right to decide what is fair for their code. An unconditional gift is also fair.

People seem to think that those who choose permissive licences don’t know what they’re doing. Software can be a gift to the world with no strings attached. A company “taking” your code is never taking it away from you, you still have all the code you wrote. Some people want this. MIT is not an incomplete GPL, it has its own reasons.

For example, OpenBSD has as a project goal: “We want to make available source code that anyone can use for ANY PURPOSE, with no restrictions. We strive to make our software robust and secure, and encourage companies to use whichever pieces they want to.”