Or maybe he could care less, but doesn't even bother to care less because caring less would exert effort and he doesn't care enough to exert any effort.
"Could care less" used as a snarky response makes sense, as in, "I could care less, but I don't want to put in the effort." Using that phrase without a sarcastic intonation is still incorrect.
Could care less meaning couldn't care less. It's the same thing as how literally has come to be used with the meaning of figuratively. If you look up "could care less" in the OED you'll find it lists it under American English with the meaning "could not care less."
Never see anything Microsoft does in the direction of open source as “they have seen the light”. It’s a trap. Claiming open source friendliness is the bait, Windows is the trap itself.
Yeah I remember when they bought Github and my coworker was telling me how they've turned a new leaf and want to support foss... nope, they wanted to train an AI on all the code there.
I personally don’t use it, pretty much just cause I’m comfortable with my current development environment, and nothing has spurred me to migrate in a while. I’ve been vaguely suspicious to see Microsoft rapidly gain such a huge market share with VS Code, but I don’t know any specific criticisms about it.
Sounds like the argument is while it’s technically open source, trickiness with the licenses makes it basically impossible to legally fork it into a usable software. That sounds plausible to me, I’m no lawyer.
But isn’t Cursor a wildly successful VS Code fork, done legally? (I assume if it were in violation of licenses, Microsoft would have already destroyed them.) Seems like a glaring exception to this argument.
Untrue. OS/2 for windows leveraged the user’s existing copy of windows for os/2’s compatibility function instead of relying on a bundled copy of windows, like the “full”
Os/2 version.
Os/2 basically ran a copy of windows (either the existing one or bundled one) to then execute windows programs side by side with os/2 (and DOS) software.
There’s a lot more to seamanship and crewmanship than propulsion methods. Cuauhtemoc is a training ship designed to teach that, not primarily how to work sails. Also it was built in 1982 so I fail to see how it should be a museum ship since it’s not that old or historic.
reply