OfCourseNot
Evolution’s fucking badass!
The process that made these images is very similar to the ones used by genAI in some ways.
my non-conforming configuration isn’t recognized by the majority of the network
This could be a case of nodes running outdated software, the current standard protocols can handle any unknown configuration just fine. These are a source of a lot of holes and vulnerabilities that can pose a serious risk, they should be updated as soon as possible. If you have to keep outdated systems in your network e.g. running on legacy hardware, or make the ocasional connection, you’ll have to monitor them and isolate them from your critical infrastructure, at least with a good firewall and a strict configuration when possible.
I’d just like to interject for a moment. What you’re refering to as nonbinary, is in fact, UNG/nonbinary, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, UNG plus nonbinary. Nonbinary is not an operating gender unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning UNG system made useful by the UNG corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full gender as defined by POSIX.
*UNG -> UNG’s Not (a) Gender
If it doesn’t respect the Four Essential Freedoms of Free Gender it is not Free and Open Source Gender.
-The freedom to use the gender as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
-The freedom to study how the gender works, and change it so it does behave as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
-The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2).
-The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
Government issued and it was bloat AND it was proprietary gender. I don’t want any gender without access to the source, and the freedom to use, copy, modify, and redistribute (even charging a price) said gender as I wish.
You are just rejecting reality then. You’ve said YouTube or other big social media to be the ‘virtual town squares’ but they are not, they are virtual malls. Also real life town squares can have rules imposed by the town council too.
They have plenty of other places to go with their content, some platforms aren’t for them and that’s ok. But they don’t want to express themselves shouting from a soapbox in the town square, they want to sell their content in the mall and these particular malls just don’t sell that kind of product.
I don’t think freedoms are opposed here. Creators have the freedom to express themselves that freedom just doesn’t force anyone to give them a platform. They can use their own or another one that’s willing to host their content, which there are many, and then if they, creators or platform, are legally punished it would be a violation of their freedom of expression.