The article suggests using nonviolent communication to clarify which sort of support is needed:
> Beyond that, ask for what you want, and check with your partner about what they want. If you want your partner’s support about something, let them know whether you’re looking for understanding or advice. Don’t make them guess. Don’t wait to see what they do. Tell them what you want.
I can see that the "Default to emotional support" can seem to suggest that you must provide emotional support whenever asked, but if you can't provide emotional support (whether from low EQ or from being drained), you can't. The suggested strategy of making the request for support unambiguous allows a response along the lines of (but probably not worded this way) "I'd like to provide support, but I can't."
The distinction between "stop giving X" and "stop asking for X" is important — in the latter case, someone is asking for what they need, whether or not the need can be fulfilled, while in the former case, someone is providing X, regardless of whether it is desired.
I believe I found some references to an attempted bombing shortly after Rudolf Hess's death.
* "Hess Death Sparks Neo-nazi Activity", Jewish Telegraphic Agency, August 24, 1987. https://www.jta.org/1987/08/24/archive/hess-death-sparks-neo... . "In Frankfurt, police arrested two young neo-Nazis who placed a bomb which did not go off in the city's central railway station."
* _Right-Wing Terrorism in the 21st Century: The 'National Socialist Underground' and the History of Terror from the Far-Right in Germany_, Daniel Koehler, Routledge, 2016. https://books.google.com/books?id=1w8xDQAAQBAJ&pg=PT211 "On August 20, 1987, two neo-Nazis were arrested after they had placed materials for a combined explosive and arson device in a locker at Frankfurt Main central station."
The latter account is sourced from p. 125 of
* _Verfassungsschutz 1987_, Bonn: Bundesministerium des Innern, 1988.
I was not able to find volumes of _Verfassungsschutz_ as far back as 1987 online.
I didn't downvote — and talking about downvotes just invites more — but the faux-quote summary you provide in your comment is inaccurate. A more accurate summary, provided in the article, is "Get news. Not too quickly. Avoid social."
The author explicitly rejects the claim you are imputing to him: "You don't have to read a print newspaper to get a better relationship with the news."
The whole article, as I understood it, was about the deeper understanding you can gain about a situation if you take things slow, in batches, instead of seeking to read and post shallow reactions quickly.
>The author explicitly rejects the claim you are imputing to him: "You don't have to read a print newspaper to get a better relationship with the news."
This isn't really pushed until the very end of the article, and it's not nearly as long as the rest. It feels very much like an inclusion mostly to appear unbiased.
>A more accurate summary, provided in the article, is "Get news. Not too quickly. Avoid social."
I agree with this sentiment overall. Though, that is a quote the author of the column is echoing from someone else. Doesn't change that it's good advice, of course.
> Of course, in reality none of this could ever happen. Sorry to break it to you. The truth is, the Pacific Ocean will boil off as the Sun becomes a red giant before you could even take your fifth step in your first trek around the world. Somewhat more of an obstacle, however, is the fact that all the stars in the universe will eventually burn out leaving space a dark, ever-expanding void inhabited by a few scattered elementary particles drifting a tiny fraction of a degree above absolute zero. The exact details are still a bit fuzzy, but according to some reckonings of The Reckoning, all this could happen before you would've had a chance to reduce the vast Pacific by the amount of a few backyard swimming pools.
The point of CC0 is that in countries (like the US) with the concept of releasing works into the public domain—relinquishing all copyright claims on the work, that's what you are doing with CC0.
In countries where you can't legally release works into the public domain, CC0 is a license that tries to do as much as it can through a license in those countries.
As I understand it, "code licenses" like MIT and "content licenses" like Creative Commons have slightly different intended areas of application, and you shouldn't mix them. E.g. "linking" means different things for code and images.
So you'd use e.g. CC0 for an icon set together with MIT license for some javascript/whatnot code that goes with your icons.
CC0 can be used for source code. For example, the FSF lists it as a GPL-compatible free software license and states: "If you want to release your work to the public domain, we recommend you use CC0."
CC0 reverts to "Public Domain" in countries/jurisdictions where this is a thing. When this is not possibly it tries to legally define the closest thing possible.
"Public Domain" in particular means that the author distances themselves entirely from the work and all the rights pertaining to it. You don't need to credit them, I believe you could even claim it as your own (that'd be ethically dishonest IMHO, but legally fine). Second, the author also distances themselves from any responsibilities regarding this work (such as accuracy, fitness for any purpose or safety).
From what I've learned about copyright and IP law (extracurricular course next to my CS education, highly recommend if you get the opportunity) and reading, it's especially these last two points that are sometimes (in some jurisdictions/countries) difficult to get rid of or distance yourself from, as an creator. They don't always allow it. For instance (someone correct me if I remember this wrong), in the Netherlands a creator cannot fully distance themselves from the right to claim "I created this". Meaning that ghost-writing is contractually not possible and relies on the honour of the ghost-writer to keep their mouth shut. It's a bit of a vague thing and we didn't delve too deeply into that example. It's generally a minor thing.
Same goes for whether a creator can ever fully distance themselves from any responsibilities over the work they created. I can imagine some jurisdictions may not allow that either. I'm not sure how that works in NL (was not covered in the course).
Anyway in this sense, CC0 is a lot like the WTFPL without the profanity, I guess :)
Here's Sokogoban, a cute recent game made with the engine:
https://www.puzzlescript.net/play.html?p=8726ac1f3addfe42cc5...
I recommend clicking the "hack" link at the bottom to see the code for the game.