I paid a fuckton of money for my @frameworkcomputer laptop parts. I paid extra for the parts I could've saved money on elsewhere because I wanted to support the company and what they stand for. I even ported Debian to the RISC-V Motherboard for the product that made Framework Framework: The Framework 13.
Now Framework decided to sponsor Omarchy and Hyprland, the leaderships of which are not just "politically of a different opinion", they are actively toxic, hostile and highly discriminatory, to phrase it euphemistically.
Nirav Patel responded to this in the community forum, essentially doubling down on the decision to take a "big tent approach".
I want to reiterate: __This isn't about "political differences", because the political difference are actively harmful to democracy itself, and the physical safety of marginalised communities.
Someone I supported in good faith with both code and money turned around and gave this money to multiple people who'd rather see me dead for existing.
Needless to say, I feel quite betrayed and I'm really torn on wether or not I should even continue and proceed with the port for the second RISC-V mainboard, because I don't want to end up supporting the hate towards me, my wife or other people in the same situation as me.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels betrayed by this decision.

Hi, I am not exactly sure how best to frame this, but recent events have got me wondering where exactly Framework, as a company, stands with regards to human rights and equality. If I understand correctly (and please do correct me if I am wrong), it seems like Framework has started sponsoring Hyprland: So I presume this is fact: Framework, as a company, has decided to sponsor a Wayland compositor who is well known to be led as a rather âtoxic and hateful communityâ. Separately, but on the ...
If your business or industry wouldnât exist without exploitation, then quite simply, your business or industry shouldnât exist.
https://www.theverge.com/news/674366/nick-clegg-uk-ai-artists-policy-letter
Iâve been thinking a lot about Tolkien.
It is often remarked that a central thesis of his books is that evil provides the means of its own defeat. Sauron crafted the One Ring that killed him, Shelob impaled herself of Samâs blade, Smaug exposed his belly to Bilbo and let him see the weak point.
I think it is less often commented on that the corollary to that is that good must still act to use those weaknesses. The Ring did not cast itself into the fires of Mt Doom but was brought by the Hobbits. Shelob was only able to impale herself because Sam kept his arm strong and held it out. The black arrow still needed to be shot into Smaugâs belly.
And a final point that I donât see often enough is that Tolkien clearly believes good only loses if it surrenders to hopelessness. Denethorâs suicide driven by fear would have broken Minas Tirith if not for the Fellowship, Frodo would have fallen to despair if Sam had not been there to carry him, if Bilbo had seen the shot as hopeless then he never could have warned of the weak spot.
But because in those cases someone provided hope, good triumphed.
I donât know. Iâve just been thinking about that a lot lately for some reason.
Sudan
Congo
Gaza
Chicago
Y'all need to understand these are all variations of the same colonizer white supremacist mentality. A mentality that enables these famines, genocides, and denials of human rights.
The only way through is together. Stand united. Speak up for all marginalized communities. Do not let billionaires distract you with culture wars. Stand united against their class wars for the sake of every human being's dignity.
Things that amuse me:
Microsoft Office 365's "advanced threat protection" refusing to let me join a Microsoft Teams meeting from Microsoft Outlook because it can't verify the site is safe.
Hey zionists
Hows about those hostages now?