That may be true but the license thing was dishonest because no one was really unlicensed in any way. That is like saying I could rake in a lot more money committing fraud than conducting legitimate business.

That won’t cause bad sectors though, that just means the data you were writing was bad.

More like actively removed them for yes men at the last election because the competent ones opposed brexit. The current administration is more a populist brexit party than a traditions Conservative platform.

Don’t let pesky things like facts ruin a perfectly fine feel good piece to make gammon feel a bit chuffed with themselves.

Except spirits doesn’t mean tiny physical things, it refers to things outside of the physical that cannot be measured or quantified by definition. If spirit was just their word for biodiversity that would be fine but then we’d be talking about sites being biodiverse and not sacred because we’d have established that sacred isn’t the correct translation. You keep repeating the same baseless justifications for spiritualistic and religious practices to be treated like some kind of science but they aren’t and never will be. They are ritualised behaviours that are successful only because the competing alternatives lead to the collapse of the populations practicing them and would fare less well in alternative environments. We are done here, there is nothing more productive to be gained from you repeating the same misunderstanding of science.

Why should I be concerned if a leap of intuition led to the conclusion things falling and movement of the planets were caused by the same thing? Doesn’t matter how a hypothesis was postulated, what matters is that it can be tested and falsified. That is the important thing, not who cane up with it and why. This is what you are utterly failing to grasp, it doesn’t really matter what axioms are assumed or what leap of logic or faith or whatever leads to the hypothesis. Spirits aren’t testable of falsifiable. Same issue with boltzmann brains which is why they aren’t taken seriously apart from as a foil to show how incomplete our understanding still is.

This is a bit more than just a language difference and shows just how little you really know or understand the differences between supernatural belief and scientific method.

Let’s take your example of the observation (not conclusion) that things fall down. Let’s say you have your conclusion that the spirits of the earth always pull things down for reasons. I have the conclusion that it’s because mass attracts mass due to gravity. Based on the one observation we have the same evidence supporting our theory’s so how do we tell them apart? Well if gravity is true we have all kinds of predicted phenomena that should also happen, it also explains why the sun and moon behave as they do. What does the spirits of the earth theory predict… nothing other than things fall down. It’s useless for being able to predict other phenomena, it wouldn’t even predict things would fall down on other planets as they might not have pull things down spirits and we might not even have asked why the spirits pull things down.

Also, it isn’t “western science” which again betrays some kind of nationalistic agenda on your part. It’s just science and anyone can do it, it doesnt belong to “western” countries.

As for “supernatural” explaination in western science, you act like every random hypothesis is taken seriously… They aren’t, they are picked apart for lack of predictive power, unless a hypothesis makes hard predictions of how the world would work if it were and weren’t true it’s pointless as it can’t be tested or used in any meaningful way. The “boltzman brain” you mention is just a thought experiment and isn’t even a serious scientific hypothesis. Scientists as a whole know and accept they don’t know everything, otherwise they wouldn’t be wasting time doing science would they?

You insisting they are the same doesn’t make it so, an ecologist studying the effects of leaving an area fallow or untouched leads to greater understanding and allows optimisation and application to other areas. Believing the spirits reside in a particular grove does not allow the same and confers no greater understanding because the basis for the practice is incorrect even if the practice itself is sound. But sure, you tell yourself that they do to justify holding onto supernatural explaination despite the fact they have little corelation to reality.

Except you have a false equivalence, we don’t have sacred sites that are left undisturbed so as to keep the forest spirits happy and the scientists who go there are not communing with anything. Your parable of the sacred site functioning as an ecological reservoir doesn’t change the fact that the local people’s reason for leaving the area alone was wrong unless it was specifically understood that it was a reservoir for biodiversity and not some supernatural explaination involving spirits.

Then petition to get it made a heritage site or something, get controls put in place to stop obnoxious and abusive use of it such as the reckless rafting trips such that the area isn’t been degraded for future generations, but if it’s open to anyone to enjoy it should be open to everyone to.

Does the relationship invoke supernatural forces driving the phenomena? Then it’s superstitious nonsense and has nothing to do with abrahamic religions other then them also invoking superstitious nonsense. Does someone own the land and want to keep people out for idiosyncratic reasons? Fine, rule of law says they get to control the land for whatever reasons they want. Is it public land? Then only safety concerns or preventing the degradation of a natural wonder should affect who can visit and for what purpose.

Do you object to software repositories that install dependencies precompiled?

Your “lines in the sand” seem idiosyncratic and arbitrary. You are happy presumably to use precompiled software or at the very least rely on software written by others which is already ceding some freedom but then claim that using systems that package all the dependencies into a single runnable unit is too much and cedes too much freedom?

I agree that containers are allowing software projects to push release engineering and testing down stream and cut corners a bit but that was ever the case with precomplied releases that were only tested on a single version of a single distro.

You can host your own container repository and write your own docker files to control all your own deployments though, it’s not like your have to be at the behest of any company to use containerization to make your own life easier with the benefits of reproducibility.

Do you write all the programs you use too or do you rely on the work of others and are drawing an arbitrary line in the sand when it comes to containerising those apps?

This right here… This whole community is about learning to do things for yourself. It might be after been given resources to learn you do decide its too much for you but people should be given the chance to discover that themselves.

Which db backup app do you use if you don’t mind me asking?

Isn’t there still a hill to climb even if they get subscriber details in proving the person who is the subscriber for that line had anything to do with any “infringement” that may of occurred. I thought speculative invoicing of subscribers had gone out of fashion as a piracy deterrent?

Can you install arbitrary apps on androidtv or only what is available in the appstore for it without jumping through hoops that possibly involve some command line shenanigans? Similar to how you can install plugins in kodi in libreelec from the official repos perhaps but have to jump through hoops for arbitrary programs? Your real issue then is that libreelec’s ecosystem isn’t as vibrant perhaps and that it doesn’t run on locked down hardware the user doesn’t really control so the media companies allow high quality streaming to them?

Arbitrary applications isn’t a TVOS like the original poster asked for, it’s a general purpose OS.

Docker and Flatpack are both containerization technologies and work in similar ways under the hood. Docker is more geared towards running headless services that other systems access while flatpack is more geared towards desktop gui applications that are interacted with from the same system they run on.

Glad it’s the court of human rights as the UK is still nominally a part of that if I recall correctly so hopefully derails UK governments attempts as well.