unwarlikeExtortion

IANAL. Also IDKWYL (I don't know wher you live), but in the sane Western world (the EU), there's no need for a notice in your case - usually it's a good idea to check with the landlords/tenants wether they plan on renewing the lease or not so you both know where the other side is standing.

And, of course, since the contract is time-bound, the assumption is that both possibilities (renewal and no renewal) are on the table, and neither require any side to go out of their way to announce their intent on what happens after the contract expires.

The 'default' option is no renewal - otherwise there is no meaning in making it time-bound and burdening the parties with the need to re-establish a new agreement each contract term. So the need to give a notice of "I plan to do xy after the contract" makes no sense, let alone it carrying contractual punishments.

You weren't required to give a notice. Even if the contract stated so, that clause would most likely get nullified, which I sincerely doubt (again, in most of Europe), since it disproportionally and predatorily benefits one party.

And again, IANAL. You should get one.

But, were I your lawyer (which I most definitely am not), I would scold you for writing the notice in the firdt place since it puts you in a submissive position (your landlord can now claim that by giving notice you "showed" that you "think" you "owe" the landlord notice, ergo you owe them money for the 2 days in May (assuming a 30-day notice), which they conveniently round up to an entire month. I sincerely hope you didn't include explicit (and unnecessary) wording along the lines of THIS IS A 30-DAY NOTICE AS PER $WHATEVER ANNOUNCING OUR INTENTION TO MOVE OUT BY DATE.

Of course, this statement makes no sense. The contract meets its natural end by the date given and that's it. No notices, no payments, no apartment rented out. A renewal requires the good-will of both parties.

My IANAL advice for you going forward is: Stick to the German philosophy - keep things as brief as possible to give the "enemy" less ammo on the one, and to deal with any edge-cases that don't go in your favour.

It's a delicate balance. A fine art, even - the art of writing contracts. And it's hard.

A good contract leaves no room for large gaps in interpretation (loopholes), but allows some flexibility. It also keeps the parties on equal footing (neither subjegated to the others) is in itself a work of fine art.

Bad contracts are (or should be) treated as insults. Shuld the insult be bad enough, ripping the piece of paper conveying the contract out of protest. (Remember - the contract is not the piece of paper, but the words on it and an oral agreement is just as valid as a written contract, but harder to prove - sometimes the legislature decides to nullify all oral contracts for specific "high-impact" things like home sale, but that's another can of worms).

Going forward, do not be afraid to reject contracts and call for a middle ground (suggest amendments) which protect your rights and interests. Not doing it is a terrible idea - the only thing you have to "lose" in such a case is all the obligations that weigh you down from the bad contract.

Germans would actually, I assure you, find it insulting if you just accepted the initial proposal of a contract if it isn't a fixed template given by the Minstries (in that case not amending is acceptable since they strike a good balance, but amending is by no means impossible - these templates are, after all, mere suggestions meant to be acceptable for the majority of uses/circumstances).

That's why you use the compost - it smells either way.

outright confirmed the exclusion [...] Notably, he didn't specify whether or not

Yeah, that's what "outright" means all right.

You're right, I didn't make myself clear. I am very much an atheist and against everything organized religion stands for. I have, however, been indoctrinated by religion for half my life so I have some insight into how a part of that giant population thinks.

Recently I've been looking into religion again, and while I won't ever be able to find Sky-Daddy, I do appreciate stuff like Vatican 2 which, while not perfect, as far as the Church goes, is a pretty good change of direction. Shame they don't extend it to things like abortion or gay people wanting to have sex (currently it's okay to be gay only if you don't). Now, I don't "appreciate" it bacause it's great, but because it's way less bad than before, and with a potential listening audience of 1+ billion people, sometimes referring to their "higher power" yields results. I have "oened the eyes" (a little bit, but any scepticism goes a looong way) of a few sect members (JW, Adventists, Latterdays) and, hopefully, "deamericanized" their view of communism. I couldn't have accomplished this through insults. It took more than a few hours of polite debating. It was exausting. But also, very rewarding. It was also unbelievable how may defense mechanisms kicked in.

But, I called upon the Church here because of two simple reasons: even the World's largest opressive society which has done volumes to squander lives and stifle progress has somehow through the absolute fucking miracle of Vatican 2 , while not admitted its past wrongdoings (they're infallible in their own eyes, after all), at least gotten a sane outlook onto this single branch of human rights. Abortion is still a no-go - they're greedy for any indoctrinated kids they can get. But hey, at least they let guys wear a rubber (they almost forbid that as well).

Since OC to me gives vibes of christofaschism, I think pointing onto the World's largest criminal communion which is like a clock that strikes right only once in a blue mlon is worth something when even they have a sane take on the matter.

And to OC reading this, I didn't mean the "christofascist" as an insult (although it might just be one). As Eco said, he was a smart kid. Luckily for him, he was a kid and nor a teenager, so he never had the opportunity to act on what he'd been indoctrinated with. While "OG" fascism was (is?) an inherently Italian thing, it bears resemblence to a lot of very bad regimes.

Education and pointing this out to people who believe the lies is of utmost importance because every single person going about their daily lives and trying to endure the terror quietly (which, in my eyes, is exactly what the deportations and executions in the US qualify as) because they silently condone and enable it.

Not to speak about outright supporters like OP (which can still be rehabilitated), or about those actively participating (these can also), or ringleaders (these might not be, but using their knowledge of efficiently runnung death camps for efficiently running a banana plantation is better than the current medieval ceremony with priests, black hoods and a crucifix "gurney"). Honestly, for all the Christians out there, I have no clue how they can't see the fucking crucifix and think "Isn't this wrong and against everything I stand for?"

Agsin, I don't identify as Christian, but even when I did, I condemned all of the things. I havebeen a steadfast pacifist my entire life. I'm not defending anything. I'm just pointing out that the world's most corrupt institution things "better" than the fascists. On the tiny little topic of people getting murdered as payback.

I think it's a design decision. Some high-level designer probably decided on cutting all the wires, so here we are. Shame they didn't hear about markrt research or customer surveys.

What is there not to understand about "an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind"?

Speaking from a Christian perspective, doing more evil will not make the already-done evil go away. Neither will rehabilitation and reintegration to society fully erase the old wounds, but it will offset them. Killing someone, even someone guilty as charged doesn't do jack-shit about the inherent problem of what causes people to kill. Neither does the death penalty serve as a deterrent. Nor does the Catholic churc condone it.

As Beccaria noted, it's not the severity of the punishment that deters, it's the inevitability and swiftness that does. Both of which the US system lacks - whether you get death, life or parole is decided largely arbitrarily, and 40 years is anything but swift. Even though the book was written over a quarter-century ago, its hypotheses have proven true and continue to be true even ro this day.

In those same 40 years most murderers could easily have been rehabilitated and resettled into society, having become more productive members than most. Sure, there might be the odd one-in-a-million truly unfixable psycho, but those can just be locked up indefinitely. If nothing else, it costs taxpayers less than ritualistic sacrifice ripped straight out of the Old Testament does.

Eh. You might not, but the "normies" might. Expanding the userbase is always a good idea for open source projects.

Not nealrly as much as electing Musk did. (Since this is just one symptom of it)

I"m with you on copyleft, but if I had any connection to the project and felt the need to add a reaction emoji, it'd probably be a "thumbs-down" as well.

It's not because I'm against the GPL, but because of the way the GitHub comment is written.

It doesn't even say "you should use the GPL", it says "you MUST say GNU doesn't agree with you". I'm perplexed.

Now, I respect the idea of GNU, but the way GNUers in general go about behaving themselves is perfect to alienate people, and this GitHub issue is a prime example. I don't get it.

If people don't know about GNU, tell them. Nicely.

If people have misconceptions about GNU, there's nothing wrong with fixing them. Again, nicely.

The problem is, whenever I encounter GNU and however much I agree with them on key issues (which is at about 90%, my main gripe with them being Freedom 0), they just have a knack to get me, someone who is with them on most issues, annoyed at them. I can clearly see how someone who isn't as alligned with them as I am gets equally annoyed and avoids GPL and GNU like the plague just to fuck with 'em (while fucking over everyone, including themselves). Not to mention ones into the libertarian stream, since you yourself covered that pretty well.

What the GitHub issue you linked that I keep coming back to shows is this GNU herd mentality of fucking over others unintentionally and in turn fucking over everyone. While they're clearly better than the "libtards", they still end up doing the same mistake.

They're not that few and far between, as declining must be as easy as declining per the GDPR. Just report the transgressors to the national watchdog.

Yup. For me it renders fine (Thunder)

I remember the day they said they'll never implement lives. Technically they're not wrong, since they call them Hearts, but I never used their service since they broke their promise.