This URL might help you (I see it linked from the URL of this post): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft
If it doesn't, I suggest looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold
LemoineFairclough
joined 1 year ago
*(char*)0 = 0; - What Does the C++ Programmer Intend With This Code? - JF Bastien - C++ on Sea 2023
An overarching question
You should probably discuss boundary setting with someone you trust. This situation might be only one part of a broader issue with your relationship with your parents, and you can probably make that relationship more beneficial and less detrimental.
Moving out
Once you are legally and financially able to, you could move out (or take action to improve your financial situation to make it more likely you'll be able to do so in the future). Distance can allow a relationship to change to your benefit. It seems that the majority of adults in the wealthiest countries don't live with their parents: http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/5908feb9fcd8eb1e008b4681-1200/young-adults-living-at-home.png https://64.media.tumblr.com/42facc68776260a335473a2553bb7f59/410ac9df6d9c28a0-9f/s1280x1920/8be58d13087dc686c9edcab713f63fc4c538e99a.jpg
The law
Note that, unless you have another reason to not want to be around your parents, I doubt that involving a state institution (like child protective services, a police department, a prosecutor's office) in your relationship with your parents will be helpful. Knowing relevant laws is more useful to better understand what is socially accepted behavior, and to be able to know what public institutions are available to help you if you find yourself in a situation where they're likely to be helpful.
Also, consider whether it's appropriate to tell other people you know about this situation. If you do choose to discuss this with other people, I would follow an escalation procedure so that information doesn't need to spread farther than necessary (for example, tell friends first, then if you don't see improvement tell adults that live near you, then if you don't see improvement tell adults in positions of responsibility (like teachers), and so on).
Privacy
You could inform your parents that state institutions might become involved if they cause you to be recorded while in your bedroom without your consent:
These quotes are discussing cameras, but I expect the same laws and principles apply to audio recordings.
If you receive mail to an address and are an adult, I expect you have rights similar to that of a tenant.
Money
You may want to ensure you have deposited any money you have acquired into a bank account you own (so there is a record of how long you had it, so it would be more questionable if they tried to claim it isn't yours). It might also be useful to use a separate bank account to receive and account for wages (since it seems there are special exceptions for wages, so keeping clear records of what money is wages and what is not might be useful), and it might be useful to have a UTMA custodial account (like one described at https://www.fidelity.com/learning-center/personal-finance/custodial-account-for-kids) (to enable making it even more clear what property has been transferred to you) (note that this does allow a custodian to use the property, but only for your benefit) (note you probably can't "transfer" money to yourself, so any money you already acquired should probably be managed without using a UTMA or UGMA account).
A community named like "Ask Lemmy" would probably be most useful to get questions answered, like !asklemmy@lemmy.world or !asklemmy@lemm.ee
There probably aren't enough people with historian questions to have enough questions to get people checking a community every day/week, so questions on that or any other specific topic would probably get seen by more people by just making a post in an "Ask Lemmy" community. However, !askhistorians@lemmy.world exists with 10 posts since 28 June 2023! I expected to not find such a community or for it to have significantly fewer posts.
You can also search specifically for communities, comments, users, etc.: https://sh.itjust.works/search?q=Ask&type=Communities&listingType=All&page=1&sort=TopAll
There is also !whatisthisthing@lemmy.world and other "what is" communities, which would be more useful for that specific type of question.
Perhaps politics being hard to understand or interact with is a sign the system of politics should be replaced.
It seems the first time PR was used was in 1855. Canada and the USA are late (it seems that most of the places I'd be okay with living use proportional representation), but catching up sooner would be better than catching up later!
I'll draw a parallel to another revolution: supposedly only two wars were fought to end slavery, in the USA and Haiti (everywhere else seems to have banned slavery with just legislation and compensation, for example in Britain), and I'd rather keep the number of wars over proportional representation at 0 rather than risking having a higher number, so advocating emphatically is important regardless of circumstances.
Proportional representation
A useful facet of proportional representation is that it often results in you having multiple representatives (shared with more people) rather than only one ("Academics agree that the most important influence on proportionality is an electoral district's magnitude, the number of representatives elected from the district."). That means you are much more likely to have someone to represent you at least somewhat rather than having a 50% chance of having nobody to represent you. This has been a major selling point for electoral reform for a long time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqWwV3xk9Qk
A TED-Ed video suggests that to "choose a defining fight" is useful. If people ask for "proportional representation" it would still be important even if we had an equal chance of ending up getting single member districts with STV or large electoral districts that elect multiple members with party-list proportional representation (list-PR)! With better representation, I expect we will find it easier to implement further improvements to state institutions.
I personally think "proportional representation" (PR) and "better representation" will be much easier terms to use to rally support than "single transferable vote" (STV) and "not having to worry about how anyone else is voting" (which would be assisted by having independence of irrelevant alternatives), since the meaning of the former is surely much clearer to the average person. STV / other voting systems with desirable qualities are good to advocate for, but it seems even "random dictatorship" is in some ways better than plurality voting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_pairs#Comparison_table), so I expect summarizing "improving the electoral system" with the term "proportional representation" will be more likely to make my life better than advocating for STV specifically.
Note that some implementations of party-list proportional representation violate voter's privacy ("In 2014 a German citizen, Christian Dworeck, reported this lack of secrecy in Swedish voting to the European Commission" (I suspect Israel uses a similar system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFbBuD32DqQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_IvDkWGqwI)), and I probably wouldn't specifically advocate for it. However, I will definitely advocate against having any electoral district elect only a single representative or using plurality voting. I can complain about party-list proportional representation, but I can't presently say it leads to worse representation than what we generally get in Canada or the USA.
Parties
My understanding about how political parties came about is that people started voting on bills in order to influence how people voted on other bills ("I'll support your bill if you support mine"), rather than considering each bill by its individual merits. An interesting phenomenon is that people also tend to dislike "omnibus" bills where a large number of changes result from a single vote, even though that at least formalizes the process of getting people to agree (it achieves the same thing but with one vote rather than several). These things seem to be hard to avoid, and parties provide other benefits due to being able to more efficiently provide certain benefits to multiple candidates at once, so I'm more focused on getting better representation with or without parties rather than focusing on parties specifically.
"In modern times the votes were unanimous" for electing the king of Germany or king of the Romans, and it seems to me that the point of having a representative nowadays is to empower someone who promises to vote in your interest, so it's a little confusing to me that people were/are surprised that people will make promises about how to vote in order to achieve their political goals.
Parties are quite ingrained in many electoral systems, so I think focusing on them rather than a more general criticism of poor representation will lead to less effective advocacy. Some entities I expect would be described as "parties" are even funded by the European Parliament:
It seems there was a pre-existing agreement to use the GNU GPL with Forgejo, and it seems to me that the GNU AGPL is not compatible with the GNU GPL.
There is more discussion about that around https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/201
I'm assuming that there has been some resistance to using the GNU AGPL with Forgejo (it seems the discussions about licenses has been contentious), and the GNU GPL seems to have been discussed much more than the GNU AGPL. It was probably overwhelmingly likely that we would get Forgejo with the GNU GPL rather than the GNU AGPL. I would have preferred that the GNU AGPL was used instead, but I'm not going to worry about it much since I probably can't change this situation for the better.