I don’t know what you for that idea. The vast majority of people I knew who passed around a copy of Adobe stuff or MS Office, along with a working key or keygen program back in the day, were most definitely not nerds who believed they were hackers.
Pirating Adobe products was common practice for poor uni students, or occasional users that didn’t want to pay exorbitant rates to fix an image here and there. Adobe made that much more difficult. Then you have us Australians that have been getting charged well above the US retail price for years; at one point it was cheaper to fly to America and buy a physical copy.
These slop apps will absolutely let people go back to doing that, and get back at Adobe for overcharging, because the open source tools either don’t work with the file formats required, or they just don’t cut it. I use LibreOffice & GIMP and they’re great, I love them. However, I’m not a graphic designer, and tools like Photoshop leave GIMP in the dust for professional work.
I cannot think of any way a coffee massive machine could be improved by connecting it to the Internet.
At least you can remove all the sidebar crap: right-click > remove from toolbar.
I really didn’t need rounded everything, not every tool needs to be Fisher-Priced.
This is a fairly naive take. Versioned docs are indeed fantastic. They make all the difference when using a specific version of a program or API that’s changed over time. However, Wikis are not just docs. They frequently contain general information on use of the software, and ‘recipes’ that aren’t specific to a particular version. This includes info that was not known at the time of a release, or has been clarified or corrected with hindsight. Wikis encourage people to contribute this information because it’s quick and easy.
To achieve fully version-controlled docs, and be able to make corrections and additions to any past version, every change would have to be a PR, assesed for which version it first applied to, then patched into that historical release. So is one then forced into organising their repo to use branches for versions? One shouldn’t move tags or rebase, so does it get cherry-picked onto every relevant version? What about when the docs change is relevant to past versions that are still used, but refers to something that didn’t exist or wasn’t possible at the time that past version was released? It’s a far more arduous proposition than a single wiki edit.
As weird as it sounds, I assumed there was some logic to this, and there was at least one case where someone had been the victim of sexual abuse and was forced to engage in bestiality. Then someone with half a brain realised that such a victim had no repulsive proclivities, so shouldn’t be excluded as a candidate on that basis.
The mere mention of the topic encourages irrational discourse.
It’s called “the clit”.
They’re moving to 45 days, so may as well make any changes based on the shorter lifespan.
https://letsencrypt.org/2025/12/02/from-90-to-45