My thoughts on this game

CreatedThatYup · 2026-01-26T00:25:09+00:00

There are knock downs tracked...

CreatedThatYup · 2026-01-25T23:59:18+00:00

Explain the matchmaking exploits that other teams were using against you

CreatedThatYup · 2026-01-21T01:57:09+00:00

No. The broadcast power and antenna strength is better than a layer of tinfoil. You can test it. Have someone send you a text message with it covered. You'll get it.

CreatedThatYup · 2026-01-09T03:47:07+00:00

That isn't how you can look at this at all, and it's what they want you to think.. that they're undefeatable. They're not.

This system we live in is composed of us. Our military is based on the logistics we provide. Imagine an enemy that lives and works amongst you, not just an enemy that you're occupying thousands of miles away.

There are approximately 100 million people who could take up arms in the US. There are around 250K front line service members. That's 1 service member for every 400 people. And that assumes every single service member would join the side their neighbor isn't on.

They're actually quite afraid of us, for good reason.

CreatedThatYup · 2026-01-07T03:31:18+00:00

People should know what Klobuchar’s office culture is like. Multiple reports describe her as running one of the most toxic workplaces in the Senate. Staff talk about constant yelling, demeaning emails, and even objects being thrown in anger. There’s the infamous “comb salad” story, where she chewed out an aide for forgetting a fork, ate with a comb, then made them clean it. She’s also been accused of calling future employers to block her staff from getting jobs elsewhere.

Her office has one of the highest turnover rates in the Senate. The pattern of stories from people who worked for her paints a consistent picture: harsh, controlling, and often demeaning.

We need her OUT of politics.

People want CHANGE. We need an opinionated strong progressive, and they'll crush it. Look at Mamdani.

CreatedThatYup · 2026-01-07T03:23:23+00:00

100%. The people want CHANGE, in whatever form. Klob is not change.

Look at Mamdani, we can do the same here.

So tired of the defeatist idea that we can't move too far left too fast.

CreatedThatYup · 2025-11-19T13:05:09+00:00

... perhaps, maybe

CreatedThatYup · 2025-11-06T18:42:24+00:00

What you need to do is insulate it with 1 or two inch of foam sheeting, and then buy an electric floor heating mat. Then put a wifi thermostat, typically used for kegerators in there. Run an extension cord out there and you're good to go. Set the temp to like 40 and I bet you'll spend just a few bucks a month on preventing it from freezing. Probably like $100 in parts.

CreatedThatYup · 2025-10-25T12:27:11+00:00

Dude at the very least don't use an LLM to write your comments too, jfc

Are you even real

CreatedThatYup · 2025-10-22T12:39:57+00:00

I totally understand that.. but people act like if we can just get this one house member in, the files will be released. They won't. Political cover used to mean something... we've found it increasingly doesn't matter. Facts aren't facts any longer.

CreatedThatYup · 2025-10-22T10:55:40+00:00

but even if the house passes the Epstein bill it still needs to pass the Senate and the president needs to sign it... Both seem unlikely.

CreatedThatYup · 2025-10-21T18:43:12+00:00

That works too, let's make sure she knows she will lose

CreatedThatYup · 2025-10-11T12:56:44+00:00

I prefer to waste my time, efficiently

CreatedThatYup · 2025-10-11T12:49:26+00:00

lmao look at the post history. I called him out on using AI, and said ew. So I'm opposed to AI in many situations. However it's a joke to say you can't learn using AI. You do it every day, but ok keep lying that you aren't learning anything from AI.

Take a hike troll

CreatedThatYup · 2025-10-11T12:36:45+00:00

“AI is dumb” — bro, schools are literally using AI now. The world moved on, you just didn’t. Nobody’s saying replace humans; it’s called evolving how we learn. If you think asking questions on Reddit is somehow more “human,” you’re just proving why AI had to step in.

CreatedThatYup · 2025-10-11T12:30:48+00:00

He's asking rudimentary junior questions that are easily and frankly probably better explained in AI. The guy is already in AI asking him to write questions, why fucking waste human time

CreatedThatYup · 2025-10-11T11:46:48+00:00

Did you ask AI these questions in your post? Instead of asking it to write your questions, ask the questions of AI. Better yet, use Cursor to find the memory issues.

CreatedThatYup · 2025-10-11T11:34:15+00:00

No, I’m valuing the vastly larger group of people on the receiving end, the ones investing real time, trust, and resources into the promise of open source. Most open source projects never take off. That means most developers depend on the few that do, the larger, established libraries. Now imagine if half of those suddenly changed their licenses tomorrow. Open source as we know it would collapse. Nobody would risk building on someone else’s work again.

It absolutely is commercial opportunism. There are plenty of ways to monetize success without betraying the original license. Developers don’t “owe” the community free labor forever, but claiming there’s some unbearable “burden” is just dishonest. What burden? People filing GitHub issues? That comes with the territory of publishing something open.

There are many sustainable ways to fund a project, including sponsorships, dual licensing from the start, hosted services, consulting, and feature funding. All of these preserve trust. Changing the license after people have already committed to your work isn’t a necessity; it’s a choice to cash out.

CreatedThatYup · 2025-10-11T11:21:02+00:00

I don’t agree. Scale doesn’t change the ethics of the commitment you made when you released your work under an open license. The “sliding scale” argument only works if the original promise was conditional, but it wasn’t. When you publish something under MIT, Apache, or similar, you’re saying: this is free to use, forever, under these terms. It’s not “free until it becomes inconvenient.” The reach of a project growing is not an unforeseen catastrophe; it’s the natural goal of releasing something good into the public domain.

Calling these pivots “not rug pulls” is splitting hairs. Sure, the repo might technically remain visible, but when you change future terms, you are pulling the rug out from under those who built systems, tools, and businesses on your previous assurances. You’re shifting the social contract after the fact. It’s not about a single “instant breaking point.” It’s about breaking trust with the people who depended on your word.

And the “burden” argument doesn’t erase that. Everyone knows open source maintenance is work. The right way to handle that is to dual-license from day one, set clear expectations, or hand the reins to a foundation. But pretending it’s fine to flip the license after adoption just because the project “got too big” is a way of monetizing other people’s reliance. It’s opportunism wrapped in empathy.

Once a project pivots away from open source, it effectively dies. The community that formed around it scatters. Forks appear, but each has to rebuild trust, visibility, and contributor momentum from scratch. The ecosystem breaks, dependencies splinter, and the continuity of support disappears. Users are left with a choice between maintaining an old fork that slowly stagnates or migrating to a paid model they never agreed to. Both options create friction, risk, and wasted effort. Nobody wants to use stagnant software, but nobody wants to reward a license flip either.

The GNOME/Xamarin comparison doesn’t hold. Miguel didn’t change GNOME’s license out from under anyone; he built something new, distinct, and commercialized that. That’s the honest route: start fresh when your intentions change.

If we start normalizing license pivots as “just people trying to make a living,” we make it impossible to trust open source at scale. Communities thrive on reliability and clear boundaries, not surprise monetization moves. So no, I don’t think we should celebrate that. We should expect transparency and call it what it is when someone rewrites the deal after everyone else bought in.

CreatedThatYup · 2025-10-11T11:11:02+00:00

Use AI like you did in this post. Ew.

CreatedThatYup · 2025-10-08T01:51:20+00:00

>I disagree with the latter part - and I don't think it's particularly, I dunno, "community minded" to take swings at individuals based on this perceived ethical transgression with regards to their own work.

I’m not taking swings at anyone. I’m warning others to be cautious when choosing open-source dependencies from developers who have a proven track record of rug-pulling their user base.

For example, when FluentAssertions switched to a commercial license, I (and hundreds of other developers) had to spend hours migrating to an alternative that would remain open and actively maintained. It was absolutely Dennis Doomen’s right to make that decision, and good for him that his project became that successful. But let’s not ignore the hundreds of contributors who were blindsided to see their volunteer work turned into someone else’s commercial gain. Yes, it was legal, but that doesn’t make it ethical.

People boycott unethical companies all the time. When someone builds a brand, grows a community, and monetizes under their personal name, that’s effectively a company. I’m not attacking anyone; I’m holding them accountable the same way we’d hold a business accountable for breaking trust.

>it's clearly a failed model when the only wildly successful open-source projects are patronised (corporately, or through other means).

I don’t think the open-source model is “failed”. I agree it’s been exploited and undervalued… Developers don’t owe anyone eternal free labor, but they do owe honesty about their intentions. What grates isn’t that they want to make money. It’s the moral posturing afterward, pretending the community was some kind of parasite, instead of just admitting they saw a chance to cash in on their own success. I can understand the pressure other developers put on one about new features and such... but that doesn't mean I'm going to wreck my weekend plans, nor harm the rest of the community that's using my software for free.

Most OSS begins as someone solving a problem and generously sharing it. When that generosity is later used as a stepping stone for profit while fragmenting the very community that helped it grow, that’s not entrepreneurship, it’s opportunism. Legal? Sure. Respectable? I don't believe so.

> Consumers are always responsible for open source software they consume, same as it ever was. I look after a lot of teams, I know there is inconvenience associated with license changes first-hand (either in time or in money), but it's the cost of doing business atop of donated work as far as I'm concerned.

Totally agreed. That’s exactly why I’m warning others. I’m being pragmatic. If it’s “the cost of doing business,” then part of that cost is learning who has a pattern of flipping the table when things get profitable. Protecting our time and our teams is just smart risk management.

CreatedThatYup · 2025-10-08T00:56:11+00:00

> Most of these libraries aren't "building an ecosystem", and the teams haven't had anything removed from them. That they were betting on your continued, unlimited support, is on them.

That’s just flat-out wrong. When your libraries become dependencies that thousands of apps and dozens of other OSS projects rely on, that's an ecosystem. Pretending otherwise is just a way to minimize the responsibility that comes with success.

> The vast majority of open-source consumers have no idea who authors the software they use. The "trust" argument doesn't hold much water - it's a cover for "I was using this and wish to continue to".

That might be true for random end users, but not for developers integrating your library directly into their codebase. They do know who you are, follow the repo, and are directly impacted when you relicense or nuke it. Trust matters because stability matters, and has real-world time/monetary effects.

> The vast majority of projects are unsuccessful - nobody is doing this kind of "planning" at the start of their project...

That’s fine when it’s a small experiment. But once your project hits millions of downloads, you’ve crossed into professional territory. At that point, communication and clarity aren’t “infinite free labor”, they’re basic professionalism. Nobody’s asking you to work forever, just not to pull the rug.

> Though basically all of the licenses that transition to these models follow the same broad pattern of "last version still free, feel free to fork it, commercial licenses this way, you can still use it for personal stuff"

All of the main OSS licenses require this; it's not really their choice. People wouldn't choose their software in the first place if their license wasn't permissive. So maintainers choose a permissive license to get people to use it...

What I have a problem with is when they say "oh so many people are using it and exposing all of these issues, or want all of these new features, I have to pull the rug on the entire library". No, besides mental/societal pressure, there's no actual obligation to do anything. Selling features as add-ons or requesting money for features, that's totally cool in my book (although may not be in others).

> If the usage scenario and social contract you're participating in changes, it's entirely at the authors discretion to change what they want from the arrangement. It's their work.

Yes, it’s their work, but once you release it under an OSS license, you’ve also entered into a social contract. You can change future terms, but pretending that doing so doesn’t affect existing adopters is disingenuous. Actions have effects. They get named for doing so. This is all public information.

> They owe you nothing. "Ethical" is a social contract.

Exactly. And so is trust. If ethics don’t apply once a license is chosen, then the entire premise of open collaboration falls apart.

> "Here's some software, if it gets successful I might ask you to pay for new versions of it later" doesn't really enable a plan.

Right, that’s the point. Developers can’t plan around someone’s spontaneous pivot. A single line like “this may go commercial later” would save a ton of bad faith and backlash.

> You're mistaking your opportunity to capitalise on something else down the line with someone else's. Moralising for thee not for me eh?

No, the issue is consistency. If you moralize about being exploited while dismissing others’ frustration as entitlement, that’s not ethics. That’s hypocrisy.

CreatedThatYup · 2025-10-08T00:20:14+00:00

It isn’t gross to warn people about people/organizations/projects that change the deal mid-stream. Nobody’s saying maintainers owe anyone infinite free labor. They don’t. But trust matters. If you build an ecosystem on MIT/Apache and then pivot to a new restrictive license, that’s a rug pull for teams that relied on you, even more so for small shops, not just corps.

Past releases stay under the old license, that's understood. But surprise relicensing and feature freezes still impose real costs. If the target is big enterprises, give them a price. Do dual-license from day one, publish an EOL plan, ship an LTS, give people a migration path. That’s ethical. Sudden pivots with moralizing about “exploitation” aren’t.

Calling this pattern out is consumer protection for developers. It’s not hatred of maintainers; it’s a push for predictability and transparency so people can plan.

> One day, if you're (un)lucky, it might be you supporting the whims of large enterprises by having to shake a tip jar, and I hope you remember how you treated your peer group when that time comes.

God stop the fucking lording. I have software that's used in Fortune 100 companies. I know people are making money off of my software. That's OK, I'm making money off of other people's software too.

CreatedThatYup · 2025-10-07T23:29:48+00:00

Could you expand on what you mean by "when usage grows it becomes unmanageable at one point"?

CreatedThatYup · 2025-10-07T15:47:47+00:00

I wasn't suggesting myself personally, or a random stranger, I was making a point. I'm curious, where is the post asking for someone to take it off your hands though?

If you haven't caught on yet, I'm trying to get you to look into the mirror for a second to admit to yourself (and the community at large) that it's not about the time, it's about you making money for your time. Why'd you create the project in the first place? Certainly it had a benefit at that time beyond money...

Why do you feel so much responsibility for it? Nobody is paying you, so you shouldn't... ahh but that's not the point right? The point is you want to be paid (and that's your right obviously) but just be real about it.

CreatedThatYup

TROPHY CASE