djbelieny

Seems to me that what is required to fix this is a complete overhaul of the valuation system and then tighter foreclosure protections, only foreclosing on defaults, more like residential real estate.

Ok, this may get downvoted but if you are Brazilian and specially from Rio de Janeiro, and you're reading this domain name, you are 100% laughing at this name. Pejorative to some, but funny AF.

Preemptively go online and talk about the dangers of AI generated content, post a modified yet non lewd image of yourself and expose the scam in a write-up telling the story of how people have tried to blackmail you with false, manufactured information. Problem solved.

Interestingly enough, the AARM actually increases friction instead of reducing it. In most states, anyone can buy ammo without any oversight, and we're not even talking about online sales. The AARM requires matching ID with Facial recognition and appropriate age for purchase. This is a case of capitalism doing exactly the opposite of what you were saying.

Not sure what is being loaded at the moment, but I know some had Federal, CCI, A&H, Blazer, Winchester, Remington among other less known brands.

Why is this frightening, may I ask ?

Anyone can buy ammo without showing ID in most states, definitely can do that online in quantities larger than you could buy at the AARM - Automated Ammo Retail Machine. Also, the AARM only dispenses if ID is VALID and if facial recon matches. The AARM would not be the first option for someone that has questionable ID and/or is up to no good. The AARM is not your usual coke machine.

How about that? Cool to see one of the projects I've been involved in popping up here on HN.

No need to login you can just scroll, ID is only required at checkout.

This put a snarky smile on my face.

"...For the first restriction, it's for people copying or creating similar product or clones using swiftship and selling it as boilerplate or template app..."

I get and agree with the idea of protecting your product/IP from being copied, cloned and resold for the same purpose as you are selling/licensing it, competing with your own offer. In that case, the license should very clearly express and address this concern. Clear licenses incentivize use ;) thanks for making the effort to make it more clear. Everyone profits from transparency.

Ok, I understand this may be an unpopular stance and risk downvotes. However, I want to share my perspective on government intervention in business, particularly regarding anti-monopoly actions against companies with proprietary ecosystems.

Firstly, I'm no fan of monopolies. Yet, I'm conflicted about the idea of the government compelling anyone to divulge trade secrets or alter their services to simply foster competition, especially when the company in question has opted to create an ecosystem of products and services designed to be exclusive. For example, Apple's iMessage doesn't integrate with other platforms, and its smartphones are optimized for its ecosystem.

As consumers, we're aware of these limitations and have the "freedom" to choose products that better suit our needs instead. Labeling a company as a monopoly simply because its products don't play well with others overlooks the investment and innovation behind their development. After all, it's Apple's technology, infrastructure, and service on the line.

Why should these companies be forced to share or open their ecosystems? While there are valid arguments for promoting interoperability and open technology, the idea of mandating companies to share their proprietary advancements seems to contradict the essence of free enterprise. Should they then be compelled to 'open up' their infrastructure against their will?

I.A.N.A.L but upon reading the license you provide with the boilerplate, seems like it is problematic at best. It possibly makes the whole thing unusable and non-distributable. Looks like this license has some of its terms cut-and-paste of other licenses without regard to what it actually means legally.

For example, your restrictions clause direct conflicts with the license grant when you mention that a licensee is restricted from :

- Modify, adapt, reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble, or create derivative works based on the SwiftShip boilerplate.

Creating derivatives, modifying and reverse engineering are basically steps needed to adapt it to certain types of apps.

And then this: - Remove, alter, or obscure any copyright, trademark, or other proprietary notices from the SwiftShip boilerplate.

Ok not really a contradiction but let's say you want to add end-user-visible copyright/trademarks... Then one cannot remove it to make their brand new app 100% on brand and without a third party brand splattered all over it.

Always read the license people...