Sorry, argv_minus_one, we Oregonians and Massachusettsers aren’t allowed to note all the things wrong with our states because we get weed and abortions.
I get how it can feel a little inconsiderate for us to gripe in the presence of folks in states where their rights are newly under attack. But also maybe there’s a reason both of our states have high costs of living, low rates of diversity, and pretty bad housing crises?
Of course, sorry I didn’t mean to imply that things aren’t relatively better here. I just get wary when someone talks about how good single-party rule would be for them.
Certainly yes, we have legal weed and nobody is making us register with a government I’d when we wanna look at porn.
However, many - or even most - efforts to address inequality are not real or effective.
The greater Boston area is one of the most expensive real estate markets in the country. The city itself is largely out of reach for folks not in tech, biotech, or finance. Meanwhile it has a very rich history of discrimination and segregation that continues to this day with no end in sight. Meanwhile, NIMBY “progressives” continue to vote down proposals for new housing - affordable or otherwise.
Lots of folks being priced out of most of the state and moving down south. And kots of folks wanting to move up here, but can’t make the numbers work.
The trouble with single-party rule is when they get too comfortable. MA has been essentially a single-party state for a long time now. Rather than continually doing good (or bad or anything at all) the legislature has grown lazy and corrupt.
The MA state legislature is one of the least transparent legislatures in the nation. Many legislators are firmly in the pocket of corporations and special interest groups. Our public transit is actively crumbling. And they have sent hardly anything of consequence to the governor’s desk this year.
Single-party rule - no matter the party - is bad news. Which makes it all the more unfortunate that they were able to FUD the ranked-choice voting initiative out of existence in 2020, so there’s no end in sight.
The trouble is, many hackathons these days aren’t “programming tournaments.” They are advertising for a company/group or a way for that company/group to solicit new business ideas.
This goes double for the blockchain space where everything is about appearances and hype.
So as others have said, I don’t think you should be upset about the “politics” of the winners, but rather about the actual purpose of the “hackathon.”
I guess I don’t see what the incentive would be for this, or even what it realistically means in this case.
Do you mean like relicensing the backend and frontend with a closed source license? I don’t see what the incentive would be for that unless they wanted lemmyml to be the only instance in existence (which runs counter to it’s raison d’etre) and to make secret/proprietary/commercial extensions to it that are difficult to develop in the open.
Or I guess unless they wanted to start charging instance admins for the honor and pleasure of running their software, which at least right now would be the quickest way to ensure nobody runs their software.