That's because pbuilder is autoremovable under the current solver3 regime, so it didn't find a reason to keep it - it picked sbuild to satisfy the Recommends above (as sbuild is manually installed).
Getting triggered each time I go to an Italian place and they pronounce pistacchio wrong. It's pi-stak-kio (/piˈstakkjo/).
Sorry but if you work in an Italian restaurant you should learn to pronounce the words correctly.
As a helper, this is the Italian version of πιστάκιον. That might make it more clear to you if you can't follow the Italian pronunciation from the spelling.
@juliank this is great, because a Google search for the etymology turns up results claiming both pistacchio and pistaccio for Italian, pistacium for Latin which is hella ambiguous, and "pistatxo" in Catalan which is NOT ambiguous.
One thing that becomes really interesting are versioned Recommends. Consider
X Recommends: A (>= 2) | B
Let X become available before A=2. The solver will install B.
Arguably a better solution is to ignore lower bounds on Recommends and instead optimize for "eventual satisfaction". i.e. we install A=1 now because A=2 will become available later and then satisfy the Recommends.
The whole "illegals vote I'm US elections" discussion is funny as a German because here
everyone needs to register their home address with the city within a week or two of moving there, you are automatically "registered to vote" by this and assigned the closest place to vote when an election happens.
to vote, you need to present ID and it's checked against the people allowed to vote in that place.
@juliank s/funny/a transparently false claim used to justify voter ID laws which are a form of voter suppression because the state does not provide IDs for free in the US, thus representing a poll tax to disenfranchise poor and rural voters/
This is the type of comment I’ve been getting a lot for my latest piece: Always from self-regarding liberals who never want to grapple with the fact that the civil rights protests of the 1950s and 60s – the legacy of which they surely want to claim – clearly violated those principles.
Whatever you don't like about the Biden record, you should understand that when it comes to the rights of workers, and regaining some actual competition in markets, this administration has been mostly awesome -- leagues ahead than Clinton and Obama, and in a different (way, way, way better) universe than Republicans since, well, TR.
I noticed the company who wanted to add their service directly into Owncast, and I said no, started releasing their own version of Owncast with their own changes in it to support this use case.
I'm not sure how to feel about this. It's kind of a fork, but it's really just another release of Owncast by somebody else. They're releasing something called Owncast with functionality and decisions that have nothing to do with the real Owncast. It specifically says stuff like "Owncast does X", and Owncast does not do X, and will never do X. Only their changes do X.
I fear this may confuse people. If something goes wrong with their version of the software, people are going to ask me for support, and might make the real Owncast look bad. But I don't know if this is wrong, or if this is completely acceptable. It's open source, and the name "Owncast" isn't owned by anybody, as Owncast is an open source project, not a company. So I guess they have the right to do whatever they want and call it Owncast.
But it feels wrong, and it seems like really bad things could come of this.
a trademark is an exclusive right to trade on a name (i.e. do business using it). Under US law (and I think UK law), certain exclusive trademark rights exist whenever you have an established mark that you're using for business. However, unless you REGISTER the trademark, you can have a hard time making a case in court.
if you're not doing business under the name, then no trademark exists; it's not intrinsic to the use of a name.
If MULTIPLE entities are trading on the name without a legal agreement governing its use, the mark is diluted and no one gets to claim exclusive rights.
the fact that a mark is already in use does not, in general, stop someone else from registering it. The trademark registration offices (in the US, the USPTO) are not incentivized to do a good job of searching for prior art before granting a trademark.
@gabek@IzzyOnDroid@darnell It is a lot more expensive to overturn an invalid mark in court than it is to defensively register one. If and only if you are concerned about such adverse registration does it make sense to register the mark and stash it with a trusted holding entity.
3/3