OfCourseNot

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.

There is not a fundamental right to use other people's platform for your expression. That's not what freedom of expression means.

These morons are gonna unleash some zombie-ass rabies I tell you.

I'm not talking about who's 'rightful ruler' or not. The roc was a country and the communist revolution took a part of the territory and made it into the prc (a new country) while the roc still exist in the remaining territory. That's the definition of a secession. I was just pointing out one of the holes in your analogy.

Now that you took the time to write that I have a couple of questions. Was the white terror an ethnic cleansing? I might be under informed on the matter but I don't know anything about any ethnic groups targeted in particular. Your last paragraphs imply that the sovereignty and territorial questions about Taiwan and the People's Republic aren't a settled matter for the whole world (except maybe the prc). Are there many voices claiming for the Taiwan government to be the ruler of mainland China anymore? Or any territorial ambitions other than staying an independent island nation?

Wouldn't the separatists be mainland china? Honest question. Like there's continuity from the former china government to Taiwan's, the people's republic is the newest entity.

I think the other commenter was talking about the lady in the picture.
The song is a popular song a bit older than great big sea. Edit: the song starts at ~1:09

Eu! Du ju habe a leucence fur dat neuf mait!?

This is a fuse box, with a flathead you should be able to open it and/or pull a small tray with the fuse itself inside. You Brits do your electrical wiring with ring-shaped circuits and put a fuse in every outlet.

This kind of outlet is intended for things you don't unplug and a socket doesn't make sense, usually boilers, ovens, stoves, ACs, alarm systems as already commented...