Fuck, I'll look at code I wrote like a month ago and be like, "what was I thinking?". So I try to fix it, run into some stupid issue and be like, "oh, right."

And this is why comments are useful on code who's purpose or reasoning isn't super obvious or even looks counter intuitive.

You can make plant-based cheeses. And some of them are pretty good. But they lack all of the same properties. Like, you can get a cheese that that when hot will stretch a little bit like the cheese on a pizza, but as it cools off it loses all of that elasticity and is not great for lukewarm pizza. You can get cheese that is pretty decent for lukewarm and hot pizza, but it doesn't have that stretch. It more just rips apart. And you definitely don't have the span of "flavors" of cheese or whatever you'd call it. Some of the big ones, sure, but again, they don't have all the same physical properties.

I don't mind the loss of those properties, but many people do.

Cheese isn't a great source for protein compared to beans in regards to price though.

Honestly, I think we subsidize the dairy industry simply because they've been lobbying so long. Meat is subsidized too. It's the one market that the conservatives are fine with ignoring the mantra of "free market" and support regulating the hell out of it in whatever way supports the "farmers" (big farm is nothing like the labeling suggests and is all headed by big guys in suits who likely never have been on a farm in their life).

I can't tell if this is sarcasm. The housing market is suffering due to "real estate investors" just buying out and renting houses that used to be non-rental. Investment is driving up the cost of housing significantly. There's going to be a reckoning as wages are kept down and mortgages keep going up though. Eventually rent to cover mortgages are going to be too high and it's just going to push out the small time real estate investors, and either more companies will move in or there'll be a small drop in pricing.

Pretty sure the main character was born in Canada making them Canadian.

The information the OS collects is not worth more than keeping you in the ecosystem itself. That's the more lucrative reasoning. Can't easily sell other products if they're not in Windows. The information collection is just gravy.

The way he acted after he "angrily puts hand" on her is a lot more noteworthy to me. Like, without context it's hard to be sure. The hand thing first seems like a "I understand what you're saying" or a "I understand how you could think that way" and doesn't actually seem angry to me and on it's own is a bit of a nothing story. But the follow up? That's is definitely not appropriate behavior and intimidatingly forcing her back like that seems uncalled for. It also seems very fast? So I don't know if something happened to him before this? Not to say it excuses it, but there's a difference between someone who is displaying default behavior or someone who has just had a really awful day and doesn't normally act like this.

Not really, it's mostly empty space.

You could try looking into it at all. Study doesn't use the term. But sure, create assumptions based on nothing. You know, like the folks that think homeless people will spend the money on something else.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2222103120

If they don't leave a VM, I assume they really want to sell me something.

You do understand what the Pythagorean theorem is, right?

You have no idea what the conversation is. It was boiled down to "I run." Why are you going out of your way to assume a whole bunch of stuff that isn't mentioned?

You mention the Google Play issue. That is an example of a disadvantage of closed source (Android is open, the Google Play Protect is not). Google Play Protect is essentially static code analysis. Think of it almost like antivirus. It tries to look for anomalies in the code itself. But it's not great. It can be tricked. And we don't even know how good it is or what kind of checks it does.

FOSS code has many people looking at it. You can compile it yourself. It's extremely unlikely for something that's remotely popular to have explicitly malicious code in it. Is it impossible? No. But just as you get folks deep diving video game code assets, you get people looking at code of many FOSS projects. Likely because they either want to contribute or make changes.

It comes down to it being easier to find malicious actors in FOSS. Its just more difficult to hide than closed source.

Why would you think closed source is any safer for any of the same reasons but worse? Closed source can just as easily (arguably more easily) steal your info (and many did but bury it in EULAs).