We can't afford properly refuting each occurrence, the effort is highly asymmetrical.

It should be fine if you remove the first layer. And the other layers as well after that one. If you throw away the whole thing it should be completely safe for you anyway. If you handle your trash carefully, with gloves and a mask, that is.

You have to think about who is motivated to write this kind of stuff. Invariably, it's people selling conventional pesticides or people paid by such people. The lobbying is strong, contrary to the arguments. This is actually a very good sign, these despicable people feel threatened.

I don't know the rules of the organic label in the US, here in Europe it's not perfect, and yeah, thhere are still pesticides including some bad stuff like copper sulfates that are allowed, and the level of care absolutely vary from ome producer to another but it's still better than conventional products for pretty much everything except for the price if you don't factor in the cost of the damage done to the environment and yourself.

This kind of misinformation needs to be firmly fought back. They want to sell glyphosate, which they try to trick us into thinking it's not bad, that's the full extent of it. It's bad, we are better off without it, that's it, end of the story.

You can configure whether you prefer the standard behavior or to use the actions assigned to the F keys by default, I think in the BIOS, and then you can use fn lock to switch at runtime. That's nice in itself but that's not all.

In the latter mode, holding a modifier key like Alt makes the F key act standard, so Alt+F4 works in any mode as expected.

Open core at best. It's proprietary software built on top of an open source base. The remote coding feature is proprietary and you need to run proprietary software on the remote server / container to use it. People maintaining forks (like Codium and the Theia IDE) are not allowed to use VS Code's marketplace. Many of their flagship VS Code extensions are proprietary. Why would they do this if they believed in open source?

The distinction is quite important. VS Code aims to get control of the development process of those who are not using Visual Studio. That's the only reason why VS Code exists. VS Code is not a gift no strings attached.

By the way the title of https://code.visualstudio.com/ is a lie that says "The open source AI code editor". Three lines under, there's "By using VS Code, you agree to its license and privacy statement.". The license is https://code.visualstudio.com/license, which is very much like your usual horrible Microsoft EULA, including tracking and forbidden reverse engineering, decompiling or disassembling. Really, the only thing missing there is the license key field at first run.

GitHub is still proprietary SaaS also aiming to control the whole open source ecosystem. With GitHub, a big chunk of the open source (and free software! Which is even sadder) world relies on proprietary infra. That's as close as Extinguish as you can get (it's just that git is not the thing that's Extinguished). GitHub is actually a pretty good example of lock-in, see what other commenters wrote on this.

30 years later, Microsoft, still the same lying company trying to control its users and the world with proprietary software. With the twist that they try a bit harder to look cool and open source (since the moment they realized open source wasn't going to disappear, not before). They really are not, especially for end-user facing software, including when the end-users are developers.

The only thing that dramatically changed is that they don't publicly claim Linux is cancer anymore, and that's probably because they are coerced into dealing with Linux. Exactly like the Web against their failed attempt to privatize it with MSN (MicroSoft Network) (the current MSN news frontpage and the memory of their messenger are only shadows of the original ambitions behind MSN).

At least the stability and consistency is comforting… or not.

Don't fall for their open washing. They just play along and attempt to get control on what they didn't manage to extinguish. Only forced changes happened, the spirit seems intact.

(The f is for "feft")

Especially if there's the same thing that already exists in open source that the model can plagiarize for you.

Not impossible. It forces the code using the library to be under a GPL-compatible license and requires the binary to be released under the GPL license.

The distinction is quite important. It's only impossible in the mind of someone who wants to release proprietary software. Even for people releasing software under permissive license it's not impossible, just highly inconvenient (and the LGPL is always an option in this case).

You stopped at the lexicon, check how it's used more thoroughly!

Is there anything else you'd like to ask me?

(yeah, taking 140 km/h, quite high for a car especially in tunnels like this, but anything slower would be slower than our slow trains and would be quite disappointing)