It’s possible there’s a regional or generational gap there. If you’re pushing 110 you probably haven’t worked in 40 years. You could even argue that the ones literally working themselves to death are the very ones paying for the older generation’s happy carefree lifestyle.

It helps if you can treat it as a hobby. My partner’s hobby is music, which is a perfectly sensible thing to do in one’s spare time. I always feel a bit weird when people ask me what I do in my own spare time and my answer is basically fixing my shit, then pushing it just hard enough that it breaks again.

To your question, the unfortunate reality is that those of us who care about privacy and software freedom are a small minority. Why overhaul your business model to suit us when they can continue to milk every other consumer out there who frankly doesn’t give a shit?

Phones are, of course, the worst of all for this. People do great work developing FOSS solutions but it is an uphill struggle and I worry that the hill is getting steeper.

I like my Garmin Vívoactive 3. It has all the basic features (for casual walking/running) and looks okay.

I really like the look of the “hybrid” watches like the Garmin Vívomove or Withings watches. They look great but as far as I know none of them have in-built GPS.

Would be very interested in checking out the BangleJS 2 as well.

One limitation that games like Civ suffer from is that diplomacy is ultimately pretty shallow because there can only be one winner, so even when you’re building alliances or trading relationships it is generally to gain some temporary benefit until you are in a position to defeat your partner later on (whether militarily, scientifically, etc).

What I would love to see is a multiplayer game like Civ but where each player has independent win conditions (so that a game could have multiple winners, or no winners). The condition could even just be to attain a certain level of happiness or wealth. And if you achieve that then you win even if other nations are bigger or stronger, and conversely if you don’t achieve it you lose even if you are the last nation standing. So decisions to go to war, or focus on technological development, or build alliances or trading relationships, etc, are driven by the wants and needs of your own people and not just a need to dominate others.

Other people have covered the main reasons, which are time and expense. I will just add:

• Lawsuits are public, and a lot of dirty laundry can get aired. They have the potential to be embarrassing for both sides.

• They are also stressful, particularly if you are cross-examined which must be an awful experience.

• Finally, they are risky: even if you think you have a very solid case, there is always a significant chance that the judge will rule against you on the day.

Basically litigation is a bad experience, whether you are plaintiff or defendant, corporate or individual, right or wrong. So both parties have a strong incentive to settle.

UI and pricing aside (I don’t have much direct experience of either on GitLab), GitHub is, AFAIK, by far the most popular and therefore it’s easier to get your project discovered and get other developers to contribute.

I do kind of think that by centralising so much stuff on a website owned by Microsoft we are running the risk of another Reddit-like situation where GitHub turns sharply anti-user in an attempt to monetise in the future. But for the moment, the network effects are real and significant.

This looks promising, thanks!

Yes you’re right, what I’m thinking of is basically a magic mirror without the mirror. Thanks for the link, I will check that out!