If prior versions were not support by pip anymore, so yes, if it were removed. There are cases of packages not being supported by the platforms, aren't there? I've run into cases where the package was fully deprecated and not useable or downloadable anymore.

What do you mean?

I just find that if pip did not support that version anymore, the software would be lost. As that is covered by making executables, as I mentioned them. But what if I wanted to have access to the libraries that were used in the program? That wouldn't be possible. Because all we get in the source code is the dependency fetching, not the dependencies themselves.

It would be good to have an alternative where you get all that you need to compile the code again, not depending on fetching them from websites that might not even have them anymore.

This mentality of ephemeral code just adheres to the way big tech would like to do things, with programmed obsolescence.

An alternative to that way of doing things would be nice and would make sure we get access to the same working open source program in 30 or 40 years.

I don't know about where you live, but here the drug lords owns some territory. And within that territory, they take political actions like closing the nearby churches, for example. I think selling actual medication could serve their purpose very well. They already sell smartphones for a low price to the local people ($15).

I think you can link bluesky to your personal domain. I'm not sure how it works.

I don't want to make Mastodon propaganda, but Mastodon talks around technology are much better than Twitter ever was.

I'm tired of people arguing that the sum of the people in the platform does not equal its culture. Facebook and other social networks clearly benefit from having influencers in their platform, and they make the platform orbit around it.

People who use facebook are not responsible for old people posting what they want. But also, Facebook earns profit from that kind of behavior, so it makes its algorithms circle around it.

It's like saying Instagram isn't responsible for all the influencers and the 'vibe' it has. It is responsible for it and you don't make the platform your own, especially not with the Big players.

Even Mastodon, where you can set up your own instance, has its culture, even if it is richer (culturally) than Instagram or Facebook.

No, each person does not make the platform their own or make out of it what they will. Only a masochist would stay on Facebook preaching their own culture while they have other options that fit better.

Your argument fails.

Also, on another note, I'm tired of Carl Sagan's atheists using Darwinism as basis for lack of a God, and I'm not a christian or muslim. That's just reason to silence people who don't want to take "scientific" argument at face value. True science is debatable and built upon healthy discussion. Not something you toss at other people to make them seem dumb or preach like a religion.

To each its own, I like it here.

What would you suppose it is ambition, to feed off influencers? What good would that bring to the platform?

If the people who used it would benefit at least. But then again, that's cryptocurrency culture, so I don't know if both complete each other.

You can see other instances at work in the app already. There is an @ symbol that says where the message comes from, and those differ from each other already.

I personally think open source software and hardware is a good starting point to making DIY stuff legal in the future.

I see drug lords getting into this if it is feasible and it isn't a good scenario. It would paint them as real saviors and make the situation more unstable.

As is typical of Piracy.

There was a serious fight against this in the COVID years, saying it was fighting anti-science that was recommending fake medicine to people. How can this model possibly subvert what happened in those years?