Negative. I am a meat popsicle.

  • 0 Posts
  • 21 Comments
Joined 8 months ago
cake
Cake day: March 20th, 2024

help-circle








  • Copy/paste for the lazy:

    –––––

    Hello everybody,

    Alex from Immich here. What a controversy that we caused with the choice of wording, right? My personal apology to you all.

    On behalf of the team, we would like everyone to know that we hear your concerns and we appreciate the love and care that you all have expressed for the project. At the end of the day, what we want most is to make sure you are all happy using the app.

    With that said, we are working on a change to the word license: we will not call it licensed or unlicensed anymore. What will it be called?

    We are still thinking of different options to make the wording less confusing. The new wording will hopefully showcase our intentions properly going forward.

    We’re also working on updating the FAQ with more information to clarify those intentions. We just want to provide good software that people will want to pay for whilst not limiting your usage in any way if you can’t.

    So expect these changes over the next week. We’re pushing this out now to let you know our appreciation for the feedback you’ve given us.

    The amount of purchases in the first 24 hours has been overwhelming. Thanks everyone for the great support!

    Have a great weekend!

    Immich team.








  • Under schedule 3, legal prescriptions would not be considered unlawful use.

    Prescriptions are a tiny fraction of cannabis use, but that would still be a major positive change.

    I’ve learned since writing my previous comment that the SCOTUS has invalidated laws prohibiting gun ownership based on previous drug use.

    … citation needed. U.S. v. Daniels was the 5th Circuit (and not applicable to most of the country,) it was not SCOTUS. After Bruen, many consider such likely to be struck down if it reaches SCOTUS, but that has not happened (nor has it even been granted cert, afaik.)

    What SCOTUS did hear this term was US v Rahimi, which deals with an adjacent topic, but the prohibited person in that case was subject to a domestic restraining order.