Also called “real estate”

If the licence is already open source then they can’t do shit. Unfortunately, they have other methods of discouraging programmers from working on the project, but ultimately open source will prevail.

DNS over HTTPS and use a DNS located in another country - problem solved

Almost correct - that would be acceleration. Jerk is the third derivative of position with regard to time, so if the number is speed, the jerk is the rate of the rate of the number go up go up go up

The main verb is most often in the second position, the second verb you are referring to is a placeholder for an auxiliary verb that usually is a different form of a previously main verb

In fact many of them don’t, since the body is mostly symmetrical and apart from cutting them open or doing an MRI, you can’t really tell (which isn’t a big deal in most cases, because most medical procedures work regardless of this condition). Also, the heart is located almost in the middle, so there is not much difference.

If you take a closer look, they are actually quite spacious

Because it pumps heat from inside to the back, so if the back is blocked it will struggle to pump heat into that tiny overheated space

1337x dot to for example

As long as you don’t use them, sure. They are composed of basic parts, just well adjusted to the purpose. But if you do decide do use them, be aware that you cannot interfere with any radio communications in any way and/or destroy someone’s property. Which does not mean I am against shooting down someone’s drone on your property that is spying you, it’s just not really legal per se.

Regret or self-hate can just as well turn into driving factors to continue doing harm to others. When you are mentally ill, logic starts completely bending and finally making a 180 degrees turn from normal

Nobody claims it’s fine, it’s just a personal example

I think this discussion is leading nowhere, but I again want to emphasize the fact that you cannot point to a person and say that their actions specifically led to any harm and thus you cannot (imo of course) morally hold them responsible. As for the second part that was not my point, you are of course right about what you said and I agree with the whole paragraph, I just wanted to show an extreme example of how there is no harm, because there is no way such a person would pay for the content anyways - so yeah, you can just let them not enjoy filet mignon, but why would you when they could eat it with no harm to anyone? And as for the last part I am not stating that piracy is always a clearly good thing, I am just stating that it is ethically neutral in most cases and rarely necessary to save content from being forgotten or for other research purposes, when eg. the scientific articles are locked behind absurd paywalls.

Not being aware was a simpler expression to convey “does not have any influence on that person”. And no, it does not harm you. Please explain what difference does it make to you if someone does not buy the game or does not buy the game and pirate it. And better yet, if you think that the comparison should be between a specific human being purchasing the game or pirating for it, please explain how can you prove someone did have the intent to buy the game? Even if so, the person responsible is not the one making a decision to pirate, but the one making it available for piracy. I still disagree with this view of reality, but for me personally assigning more responsibility to the websites offering content rather than the users is a more sensible middle ground. The main problem for me is the idea of a “lost sale”, whereas it is not possible to prove someone was going to buy the product. I’ve even seen some people suggest things like “if you are poor and can’t afford entertainment then you shouldn’t have entertainment”, which is completely absurd, because in this case specifically piracy even more clearly has no negative impact on anyone, and just a positive one for the person unable to afford a product.

Sale of revokable for any reason at all licenses to access digital content should be a crime, not piracy. This content can be infinitely reproduced with no harm to the owner, in fact in most cases the owner doesn’t even know that you specifically copied the content. I completely agree that everyone should support creators they like, but I completely disagree that it should be compulsory on often whatever terms the author comes up with to extort as much money as they can.

And why do you think so many cyber crimes are left unsolved? The authorities know that sometimes it is not worth going after some even semi-major criminal if they know what they are doing.

Again, if you properly separate your identities, than the answer to both questions is simply impossible, since you are not the one figuring on the bill. The only thing they can achieve is link you to some IP behind 2 VPNs and 5 proxies, good luck to them if they want to dig through all that while avoiding you noticing and simply deleting all data from one of them making you completely separated from any illegal activity.

I do, but do note that all public research is funded somehow, though importantly it is public, so free to access. This is my idea of how all research should be conducted.

And an important thing I forgot to mention: you assume that piracy is some invisible force that makes customers not buy the product and inflicts purely theoretical losses to the company, while in reality the vast majority of pirates would not buy the product anyways, and some (like me) have bought hundreds of e.g. games, just because they liked the pirates version. Some studies have shown that piracy has a positive net influence on the number of sold copies. Saying that piracy loses sales is just a stupid rhetoric used by greedy callous companies to raise prices even more, though the product does not change.

Nah, you can just write whatever makes even a tiny bit of sense. It’s just protection against bots