As for system performance, mimalloc's effect isn't particularly noticeable in regular use. Or maybe I just don't stress the allocator often enough. There may be more daemons running by default, but they are also activated on demand if you aren't using them, so YMMV on that.

For desktop use, it feels like an early (but already quite usable) version of what a respectable systemd replacement would look like, and I think that's its greatest strength in practice.

Mostly true, except the "for procreation only" part. That's specific to Cathlicism.

Protestant doctrine tends to be "anything goes, so long as it's in marriage", with the implication that marriage is heterosexual.

> and female sexuality to be inherently corrupting because "it was Eve who tempted Adam in the Garden of Eden."

I don't know of any non-sectarian modern Christian group that think like this. I don't think it was even current thought at the time of the Reformation.

> The Christian dogma

You are, once again, talking about Catholicism. No other denomination calls their teaching "dogma", because only Catholicism claims to be infallible. And for that reason, any serious error in their dogma is nearly impossible to excuse without some serious mental gymnastics. Other denominations can go to the Bible and point to a passage showing some attitude was wrong, change their doctrine and move on. But not Catholicism.

I also heard these things in sociology class at school, but they are outdated and partially incorrect. And it's a very anachronistic interpretation of history.

> That isn't "sex positive" in any commonly understood sense of the term.

No indeed. Modern Christians aren't either. But that's not what the GP was referring to. What you got was women actually being consulted on who they should marry, getting basic human rights and so on. Which, at the time of the first century A.C., was rather revolutionary. A lot of these were weakened over time by Catholic (and also some Protestant) culture, but treating people like people is very much a big message in the Bible.

Another big message in the Bible is restraint, so of course Christianity can never be fully "sex positive" in the modern anything-goes sense of the term.

One example would be having a big graph inside the arena. Pointers to other elements can just be plain pointers.

With "conventional RAII" you need to know if your pointer is the only pointer left to know whether to call the destructor. That requires some sort of pointer tracking.

I had been thinking for a long time to switch to Android (GrapheneOS, probably) when my current iPhone 13 dies, but this whole thing with "sideloading" on Android is making me reconsider. If I can't have the freedom I want either way, might as well get longer support, polished animation and better default privacy (though I still need to opt-out of a bunch of stuff).

Copyleft protects against proprietary forking, and also assures the community you can't close the source in the future. Weak/non-viral copyleft makes it so you can still link it to proprietary software, so you could sell integrations (non-LSP) or closed-source plugins.

LGPL and GPL licensed software can be provided over a network with proprietary changes. The AGPL and EUPL both close that hole. Every change to the modules covered by the EUPL must be open sourced, even in that case.

If your intention is to monetize the LSP itself, open source is probably not what you want. It's fundamental to open source that anyone can use it for any purpose, and also fork it. Permissive licenses like the MIT license allow relicensing to a proprietary license later (see Redis) but that causes problems with the community (see Redis), and is nearly guaranteed to cause a fork.

I can't speak to how well it fits in your usecase. There are too many ways to do monetization, and I don't know which one you have in mind. But copyleft at least stops other entities from monetizing without sharing their contributions, so if you want to keep it open source, that's my recommendation.

I highly recommend reading the paper[a] and trying it out. It's really interesting, and pretty easy to program.

The main problems with it are that it's too text-centered, and the interaction model is kinda weird for modern standards. I feel these are solvable (Plan B's Omero tried, with partial success), but they are hard to do without integrating the UI and the script into a single process, which feels like cheating. But well. If I ever get around to making a prototype, it will be here on Show HN.

[a]: http://doc.cat-v.org/plan_9/4th_edition/papers/acme/

I enjoy understanding what my programs do to the deepest level, so making or using AI are both boring; they remove the fun part of programming and leave only the boring parts (mainly debugging). I haven't liked the current ML field since the beginning (early 2010s in my case) for this reason.

I want a tool, not a slave. I don't want it to be "smart", but an extension of my body. A thinking body part is always more annoying to deal with, because you have to reverse-engineer what it's doing to get it to do what you want.

I don't think this reasoning applies to everyone. I think it's fine for other people to use ML algorithms. I just don't want them myself.

Not sure if it's what the OP wants, but I think it's a neat license and I don't see it used anywhere.

This problem should be considered moral, not legal.