Ideally you want to use QMK's tri_layer feature as I outlined in this comment.
Also you can just use the _______ keycode instead of restating MO(...) on every layer as that is the an alias for KC_TRANSPARENT meaning it maintains the function of the layer below.
This doesn't work perfectly, IIRC if OP presses MO(1), then MO(2), then releases MO(1) it'll stay on layer 3. The better way to do it is defining the layer_state_set_user function and calling update_tri_layer_state as documented here
Ricardo was testing in production
I didn't notice that 7,8,9 had no effect on the count. My bad.
I know this doesn't answer the question but I want to offer some advice instead.
In my opinion just don't. If the company want you to have access to emails on the go then they should give you a company phone. If they don't, why are you trying to? Don't put work things on your personal phone.
Chars are just numbers, but yeah, an enum would work fine too, sure. The only advantage with using a char for it is that there's no conversion needed for outputting them into strings so it's a little easier. Less code, very readable, etc. Though yeah, thinking about it JQKA wouldn't be numerically in the right order which could cause issues if the program did more than just implement HiLo
Yeah, just use a char for card and test
if(card < '7') count++;
else count--;
Or something, don't mix types.
Any specific infringement material (by which I mean media) would only be on the user's home server. Links to content aren't what is actionable for a DMCA notice as far as I'm aware. And the DMCA does not require platforms to actively monitor or remove potentially infringing content, only to follow the takedown procedure when sent an appropriate notification. If they follow that then they are protected from liability. That's US law but IIRC the implementations in most of the rest of the world are similar if not the same. And here's the rub: even without those communities, LW will still need to have a DMCA agent and take action against content when notified because people can and will upload infringing media here on other communities.
They're not exposing themselves to additional risk by having the piracy communities unblocked. People can and will discuss piracy, in abstract terms at the very least, all over the place. And discussion of copyright infringement is not copyright infringement anyway. Any liability and risk they do hold they will still have to worry about now regardless.
This is the correct answer
/thread
Yeah, it does
I presume the reason they didn't use GPL3 is because they wanted the attribution and non-commercial clauses offered by CC-BY-NC.
Not suggesting that they should not prefer to drop those clauses in favour of a copyleft free software licence. but you asked "why not" and losing those clauses is clearly an obvious candidate for why they might not want to.