Dude, if you're being obtuse on purpose because you have an ax to grind against Rust, try a different approach. You're not getting anywhere, clearly by the fact that no one agrees with you.

If you don't like that Rust has a restricted trademark, then call that out instead of trying to label the software and it's license as non-free. It's literally called out in my source that name restrictions ipso facto does not violate freedom 3.

But if you genuinely believe that the implementation of the Rust language and it's trademark is burdensome to create a fork, and you want people to believe you, then you gotta bring receipts. Remember, the benchmark that we both quoted is that it "effectively hampers you from releasing your changes". It being "not a piece of cake" doesn't cut it.

Hint: Google Rust forks since their existence also undermines your claim.

Good luck.

Please read this and try again.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#packaging

Rules about how to package a modified version are acceptable, if they don't substantively limit your freedom to release modified versions, or your freedom to make and use modified versions privately. Thus, it is acceptable for the license to require that you change the name of the modified version, remove a logo, or identify your modifications as yours. As long as these requirements are not so burdensome that they effectively hamper you from releasing your changes, they are acceptable; you're already making other changes to the program, so you won't have trouble making a few more.

Python does not follow semver.

https://docs.python.org/3/faq/general.html#how-does-the-python-version-numbering-scheme-work

Password managers support passkeys.

Straight up adorable

Yes it can be an issue because the GPS doesn't know where you are and thinks you are on an aboveground street. Freeway tunnels can have multiple exits too.

"I can read this Perl scrip"t should translate to "I'm lying".

I don't like karma. It incentivizes short, meme-y posts since those are things that get gets a lot of karma.

Most of us have bad memories of over-complex hierarchies we regret seeing, but this is probably due to the dominance of OOP in recent decades.

This sentence here is why inheritance gets a bad reputation, rightly or wrongly. Inheritance sounds intuitive when you're inheriting Vehicle in your Bicycle class, but it falls apart when dealing with more abstract ideas. Thus, it's not immediately clear when and why you should use inheritance, and it soon becomes a tangled mess.

Thus, OO programs can easily fall into a trap of organizing code into false hierarchies. And those hierarchies may not make sense from developer to developer who is reading the code.

I'm not a fan of OO programming, but I do think it can occasionally be a useful tool.

I don't want to victim blame here, but both "Logan Paul" and "crypto" together is just screaming scam. That being said, I hope the victims get their money back, though from the article, I doubt it'll be anytime soon if at all.

Yep, though federation syncing is really slowing down. This post from !technology@beehaw.org is at 44 comments from programming.dev but 112 comments on the beehaw instance.

Next season of Mushoku Tensei! Been waiting for a while and I'm hyped!