So basically Arch?

They’re free to change the licence of future versions.

Only if they are still the only contributor. Once you have more contributors, it gets far tougher to change the licence.

Oh hell no, we don’t need THREE major active conflicts!

Subsidise how? They were using their existing plan as intended and even willing ditch the grey-area parts. If CF cannot afford to offer their plans as they are, they should change the offered plans, not hunt for easy prey.

So do I, and yet I keep renting a tiny apartment for ridiculous money. Maybe I should have committed genocide instead.

It would be just as (un)popular as the Steam Machines if it wasn’t for Proton, that’s my whole point.

They already tried that in the Steam Machines era. It clearly wasn’t working.

An int& reference is just as much of a variable as int* const would be (a const pointer to a non-const int). “Variable” might be a misnomer here, but it takes just as much memory as any other pointer.

never mind, I looked it up. It’s a “reference” instead of a pointer. Similar, but unlike a pointer it doesn’t create a distinct variable in memory of its own.

I’m almost sure it does create a distinct variable in memory. Internally it’s still a pointer, specifically a const pointer (not to be confused with a pointer to a const value; it’s the address that does not change). Think about it as a pointer that is only ever dereferenced and never used as a pointer. So yes, like the other commenter said, like an alias.

Ah, so this was about melting the bottle down and making a new bottle 7 times? As opposed to washing the bottle and reusing it as it was. Makes much more sense now. :)

Why 7 specifically?

A non-American here. Can you explain why it is considered a political suicide? Do the votes like Israel so much or what?

How many email accounts do you have? It might be a huge factor. I have about 7 accounts I need to check regularly and I cannot imagine doing it manually for each. I can see it working for one or maybe two though.

It… isn’t poop?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLikP6BDH5w

I wasn’t aware they added WebAuthn to the free plan recently. That’s great to hear, thanks for the correction!

I’m truly confused about what people expected.

I’d be perfectly okay with them just charging for Bitwarden, period. Instead they pretend it’s free but charge premium for all the most effective security features, including 2FA to their own services. Effectively it creates a group of people that use Bitwarden without access to these security features but complacent enough to not seek alternatives that would offer these features at a price acceptable for them (possibly free, like KeepassXC).

Bottom line: security shouldn’t be a premium feature. It should be either available or not at all. Never as a premium within the service.

DNS-based ad blocking is unfortunately much less effective. It’s still better than nothing though, that’s for sure.

Even if it’s supported, it doesn’t mean it needs to be installed in every system. If the user wants to use a Musl-based system, the software working only on glibc needs to be patched. At least that’s how I understood these statements.

They are the alolan forms.