Bringing guns to shoot people you disagree with, then shooting them and injuring them for doing their job is not a harmless demonstration. It's terrorism, and they deserve what they got.
No offense, but you're being so dramatic for no reason. You're not that important, and it doesn't matter what you believe. Your comment just reeks of smugness and immaturity.
How completely dishonest to call this a demonstration. They brought guns and shot government officials. Trying to kill people you disagree with isn't demonstrating, it's terrorism.
Just tried typing Jordan on mine, and my suggestions were "on", "is", and the Jordanian flag. So I'm pretty sure you had to have typed the words "Jordan Peterson" before for it to make that association.
The donation prompt can permanently disabled with two taps, so I'm not sure why that'd be a reason to abandon it. It's a complete non-issue.
"You've been using FUTO keyboard for X days. If you find this app useful, please consider paying to support future development.
FUTO is dedicated to making good software that doesn't abuse you. This app will never serve ads or collect your personal data."
I don't mean to be rude here, but this is an extremely bland, mild message. There's nothing passive aggressive about it in any way. What do you find aggressive about this?
The early iterations of swipe were very inaccurate, yes. But the newest swipe release mentioned here is much more mature.
It's not perfect, but it's practically on par with GBoard aside from a few blips here and there. It's enough for me to get rid of GBoard for good, and not consider reinstalling it.
Yeah, it's pretty pathetic on Google and Apple's part.
It might be not a foolproof solution, but I think the license is better than nothing. Then you have a legal precedent that you can cite when you file a lawsuit against these rats.
Most of these people doing this probably aren't in the same country. But whatever. It's better than nothing.
Yeah, honestly. I love open source as much as the next guy, but I don't understand why people are so up in arms about this. The license feels pretty reasonable.
The source code is fully available, none of the features are paywalled. They only prohibit you from taking their code and reselling it.
If you take a look at the Play Store, there are thousands of instances where open source projects are lazily renamed and sold for $5 or $10. It's the definition of scummy, pathetic, worthless behavior, and I'm glad the license prevents those kinds of leeches from succeeding.
I know this isn't the only case, but it's the majority of cases. So I have no problem with their license at all.
Yeah, I just disagree with the terminology of calling something "banned", which makes it seem a lot more dire than it is. Local book curation at a school-district level doesn't seem newsworthy to me, which is what the whole "banned books" term seems to stem from.
A library can choose what books they stock (especially a school library. Of course they're highly curated.). You don't have to agree with their choices, but the book isn't banned. You can still find it at a county library, an ebook library, or on the Internet.
So it's a bit dramatic to say "I'm fighting the system by hosting banned books!", just because some Tennessee elementary schoolers can't check it out from their school library. Just feels like a joke and a mockery when there's governments that genuinely censor books.
I think calling them "banned" is so disingenuous. There are actual banned books that are illegal to own in the United States. None of these "banned books" come anywhere close to meeting that criteria.