codeguro

I appreciate the effort. I'll give you my honest two cents. If you don't have thick skin, stop reading here. I'm going to be critical, and I'm going to be blunt. You can take it or leave it.

The landing page sucks. In my first impression my eyes immediately darted to the animated graphics/webms. The text reads like it was written by AI with the sentences in triplets everywhere. Immediately my trust for this site (which was finicky at first) has already gone down. If you can't sustain my attention in the banner, what makes me think you can sustain my attention for the app? Be direct - show me what your app does at a glance. My attention is very scarce and very expensive, don't waste it on vague niceties or depend on me to trust you on what you say other people are saying about your app. I feel like you're trying to cheat me out of own autonomy when you're selling me something (even if it's free, my time = money) that I have no idea what it does until I get to the FAQ. My 2c - put the FAQ in the very top, with the questions "Is this just another AI chatbot?" and "How does Indy fit with ADHD coaching or other support?" in order with minimized distractions. This tells me what your product is and what it isn't at face value.

>Trump is a fascist?

Oh boy, I haven't heard that one before. Also it was the left that was tearing down historical monuments last I checked. It wasn't the right killing Charlie Kirk either. Also, isn't antifa a domestic terrorist organization? I'm pretty sure it has been designated as such: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/desi...

>Come on. Go back to a flip phone, or make your own smartphone ecosystem. The entitlement is outrageous.

No it isn't. It's perfectly reasonable. It's my device, bought with my money, earned on my time. I didn't agree to a social contract. I bought a tool. And you're a fool if you think

>but it's the current year!

is an argument. This isn't happening because the technological cosmos demands it. It's happening because google is winding up for a monopolistic hold of the market. They seek to manipulate it for their private benefit at the expense of everyone else. If they actually push through with this, they will be broken up.

Get over yourself. Linus himself said Linux is just a hobby. It just happened to be the best because of the lack of red tape dragging development down. It got as big as it did BECAUSE it was a volunteer project with the right choice of license and remains the best DESPITE big corps pouring money all around it. https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/mmmlh3/linux_has_a_i...

Some people also forget that end users are also developers themselves. GPL helps everyone in this way.

> In cases of emergencies government can and often does intervene (see housing crisis, airlines during covid etc). Why wouldn't government offset something like this in case of student loans during emergencies?

Because it is unconstitutional, and because it is unlawful. It is during times of emergencies that individual liberties are under the greatest threat and so it is during those times they need the strongest protections.

I find it funny you cite the housing crisis and covid as paragons because the government intervention to each of those were horrible and people in general would be much better off in the long run if the government never intervened. Maybe you don't like the idea that the government can be a threat, but I assure you that governments can and do go rogue. Never forget that the constitution was written as a document to put limits on the government. There is an important reason for framing it exactly like that. It puts into focus the very real dangers of having a centralized power encroaching in on every aspect of your life. With every piece it seizes, it also seizes a piece of your individual autonomy.

>like when bud light was encouraged to spend a bit of its marketing budget differently

But that was the whole point. They were marketing to children. They still haven't recovered from that backlash. Anheuser-Busch took a pretty damning financial hit and it sent a message to all the other companies not to pull this kind of stunt because it's bad for business. Changing their behavior was the entire point.

Becoming a doctor, lawyer, scientist, or engineer is a personal choice, and a personal investment. You don’t get to socialize the costs and privatize the gains for your personal benefit in the name of “society”. If you need to take out a loan, borrow against your future, not everyone else’s. You’ll be making more money later so it’s not like you can’t afford it anyways.

People spending money that is not theirs on services they themselves will not receive will care about neither the quality nor the cost of those services. But this at its core is exactly what the government bureaucrats do. If you listened at all to great economists like Milton Friedman then it’d be obvious to you why government spending inevitably leads to lower quality and more expensive services than those provided by a free market through the private sector. Moreover, this spending is done by force, meaning the government is violating your individual autonomy (and the autonomy of every individual they tax to fund this program) by removing your right to decide how you spend your money on services you need. We as a society don’t generally view force as a legitimating factor. We view consent as a legitimating factor, and these goods and services are just that; goods and services. And, like every other good and service, the free market is a solution to provide more variety of them at a variety of costs including ones affordable to you. There is a reason people choose to bring their kids to private school and many people who would otherwise choose to do so cannot because their income is taxed to fund public schooling.

The lesbian dance theory degree example is obviously an analogy to illustrate a bad investment and get you to understand the outrage of having to pay for someone else’s personal (bad) investments. 18 year olds are legally adults in the US and as adults they have the right to make decisions about their futures. But their inexperience does not absolve them of their responsibilities. And it’s not like they have to get a degree fresh out of high school either. They can choose to wait and watch the real world for a few years until they decide what they want to do with their lives. Stop infantilizing them.

If you’re asking me my opinion on discharging debts, I disagree with the concept in principle for the same reason as the original occupy wall street protesters. Businesses that fail, even if they are big, should not be bailed out at the taxpayers expense. Bad investments should fail; that is the risk you wager when you agreed to play that game. You don’t get to turn around and privatize the gains and socialize the losses. We live in a society.

Firstly, I don't think you're engaging in good faith. I won't humor shotgun questions like yours. They're not even on topic. If you want to talk about these topics, then we do them separately and one at a time. Those are my terms. Secondly, just because I participate in a society doesn't mean I agree with how it's run or that I don't see room for improvement. That argument boils down to a Mr Gotcha comic.

Here's a good start. Don't have people who don't make the choice to take out loans be forced to pay off those loans. I don't think it's unreasonable that you bear the costs of your _personal_ investments for your _personal_ future. Whether or not society as a whole benefits from it is besides the point. They are _personal_ investments at their core, and they can be paid off with your higher future income. Borrow against your future, not mine. Society's part is contributing to your higher income through business at each individuals' personal discretion. Don't make the mistake thinking anybody owes you anything more. You're not entitle to a higher income even if you went to college. When you made a bad investment, you pay for it. I'm not paying for your lesbian dance theory degree, and neither is the plumber making a living without some degree.

>why didn't they rule in favor of executive authority when President Biden he tried to forgive student loan debt and a Federal Judge in Texas deemed it "unlawful"?

Because it is unlawful. Student loan forgiveness is not an entitlement. College isn’t an entitlement. These are the facts. Moreover, college is a privilege, and it’s a choice, and at its core it is an investment into your future. Having the government forgive it implies the taxpayer will pay for it. That means that essentially people who chose _not_ to go to college, by their own choice or due to their own circumstances, now have to pay for the investments of the people who chose to go. College educated people tend to make much more money too, so in essence you’ll literally be taking money from the less privileged and giving it to the more/rich. And this would be done by force. In what way would that be lawful? Why would others have to pay for your personal investments? You took out a loan, you pay it off. Leave everyone else out of it.

>If X works for your use case you’re a vaccine denier

Wow, you sure are convincing! /sarcasm

If you depend on shame and straw-man to get your argument across, it shows me you lack merit. I’d continue to use X to spite people like you. And all this done in context of corps like RedHat pushing for the outing of the main X developer for the past 11(?) years isn’t helping your case either. In fact, I think I’ll stay on X for the forseable future, and convince people I know with its reliability. X11 has been around for a long time, and it works for a lot of programs.

There are problems in the DSM-5 for ADHD diagnosis. Dr Russell Barkley breaks it down in his lecture here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JLKCzEDqGa0

obligatory: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11797075

ADHD is caused by a defective gene involving the DAT1 transporter causing it to be overactive. This causes a deficit of dopamine that predominantly impacts the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (there are other parts impacted too, but this one is the most apparent). The brain compromises with novelty seeking behavior to rebalance the neurochemistry as a depression response, and this outwardly manifests as distractibility.

Don’t talk of things you have no clue about. Saying ADHD is “manufactured” is downright harmful. And yes, stimulants do treat it, and do so very effectively. I encourage you to learn more about it from Dr. Russell Barkley, the leading authority on the subject. He does well to dismantle the myths and stipulations and is very knowledgeable. He even has a youtube channel where he elaborately breaks down the studies in a way the common man can understand.

> Men need to talk about their feelings just as much as women! There isn't some major difference in how we handle emotions!

You are categorically wrong. In fact, you couldn’t be further from the truth.

Men process emotions differently than women do. A real, biological difference. There is a reason why men don’t cry at the end of titanic. And to imply men are somehow emotionally stunted because they don’t emote like a woman does, is not only wrong but is harmful.

> vulnerable is not the same as being weak

Go read a dictionary. Showing vulnerability is the same thing as showing weakness and society shuns and shames weak men. There are reasons for that, and men have every incentive not to show weakness.

This is pretty cool work! Glad to see it under the AGPL. That definitely helps me trust it a bit more.

Nothing prevents one from selling GPL'd software. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html

They won't. They deliberately made it permissive. How else are manufacturers like John Deere going to withhold the source from the farmers? Can't have them undoing those software locks, now!

You’ve got a severe case of TDS. I voted for Trump. I did it in 2016 and 2020 and 2024. And you don’t know anything about me.

You like to cry “fascism! Fascism!” while you turn a blind eye to ‘Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard’, to the deterioration of the economy, and to the social cohesion of the US at large. To be so blinded by your rage that you can’t look past Trump’s demeanor and actually look at his performance tells me you’re out of touch. If the egg prices aren’t concerning you, then you are in no place to talk about what is motivating commonfolk who voted for trump. By the way, this all started because elites like Hillary openly showed contempt for working class folk with her “basket of diplorables” statements. I voted for Trump because he represents my interests. Maybe if the left didn’t hate me for being a cis white male, I wouldn’t be so inclined to vote for him out of spite. But make no mistake, you’re not in the party of love and acceptance just because you voted for the other guy. You very much have a lot of hate in your heart. And if you feel like punching my face right now, just know that you are everything you claim to hate so much.

A special endpoint e.g. /about or /license that lists the terms of the AGPL and a link to the source code would suffice. That's not difficult or unreasonable at all.

> would have to open-source everything

Stop lying. This is FUD. It must be disregarded with extreme prejudice. It is completely, factually, unequivocally, incorrect.

You can connect to Redis using their first-party, MIT-licensed client library. You can write proprietary software using that library with no requirement whatsoever to release your software under any particular license (although of course you still have to comply with the MIT license's attribution requirements). Heck, you can even serve this software to your users. The only condition being that you you distribute the original source or your modified changes of the AGPL'd part of the software in your stack to your users under the terms of the AGPL license. Nobody said you have to open up your whole stack. That's SSPL territory.

> AGPL isn't LGPL, it infects anything that uses it over a network.

Stop lying. This is FUD. It must be disregarded with extreme prejudice. The AGPL must remain free, and anyone interacting with it over the network must receive the opportunity to obtain the original or modified versions of the AGPL'd software and that's it. Nobody said anything about opening up the entire network stack. That is SSPL territory.

> Enterprise customers can't use software under AGPL because it risks infecting their IP, so they're forced to buy an enterprise license.

This is a lie. It's FUD. And it should be disregarded with extreme prejudice. Stop it.

First and foremost, AGPL'd software must remain free. They could use it in their stack. The rule is they must point to the sources of the AGPL'd software. If they make a change to the AGPL'd software and users interact with that (even over a network) then they must disclose the changes to the AGPL'd software. That's it. They don't have to open their whole stack. That's SSPL, so stop spreading this FUD.

Second, it's not their IP. They didn't write the AGPL'd software. They must abide by its terms.

Third, even if they chose (emphasize on "chose" and not "forced") to use AGPL'd software, they could simply disclose the changes they made to it. There is little to no excuse not to. The fact is that if the software meets their needs, they have little reason not to. The AGPL exists to protect Software Freedom so if they find that objectionable it can only be concluded that they intend to harm Free Software.

> I understand that it should be fine to use an AGPL project in a commercial enterprise (without modifications, internally in backend network).

Making changes is fine too, so long as those changes are also distributed. "The source come with the binaries" is the general rule. You don't even have to open your whole stack (that is FUD), only the parts under the AGPL that you changed and only when you distribute it. Companies can and always have used these projects internally without risk.

It's not a heavy burden at all. Releasing source code is quick and easy. Github will host it for you for free. The issue isn't the burden. The issue is that they don't want to comply with the license. Let's cut the crap. This is an attack on the four essential freedoms by means of replacement of the foundational libraries. If you want to talk about burning resources to do complete rewrites, let's start with uutils.

If you look a bit deeper, this project actually cares deeply about its license, and is going out of its way to choose the license it is using, ignore complaints, and avoid ending up GPL.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qTyyMyU2hQ

In an interview with FOSS Weekly, Sylvestre Ledru (the main developer, who curiously has a background working on Debian and Firefox, before ending up getting seduced by the clang/LLVM ecosystem), firmly states "it is not about security".

>The uutils project has the right goals

Their goals are to _replace GPL's code_. It's a subtle attack on Free Software by providing corporations a workaround so they don't have to abide by the terms of the license.

Nobody seriously doubts the efficiency or safety of the GNU Coreutils. They've been battle tested for over 30 years and whatever safety or optimization risks are left are negligible.

>Ok in fairness the LGPL license of KHTML was a huge reason the WebKit source was available (for ages it was just reluctant tarball dumps) but I don't think that's the case for LLVM.

It was originally supposed to. https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-02/msg00...

> Given that it is down to the voters, and they thought a racist, rapist, conman should be president giving them the power of the executive - which has been growing increasingly powerful for my adult lifetime.

It's this kind of contempt that got him elected. You have no empathy or interest in the will of the people. Maybe if you talked with some of them, you'd understand their grievances. But something tells me you'd sooner ironically prejudicially dismiss them all as racist bigots.