When you say that it would "almost be like a punishment for Linux users", I think you're wrong, because it literally would be a value add. There is something interesting about the fact that offering you 10% more value would be taken as a downgrade

What is the value add of letting Linux players play multiplayer, and all the cheaters for that particular game is concentrated on the Linux servers so Linux players end up playing with the cheaters, and the Windows players get cheat-free servers?

…They are also building email

I'm waiting until they announce their own smartphone OS before accepting they are following in the footsteps of Google.

I mean, it keeps bothering me that their search engine logo is a "g". Anything to position themselves as close to google.

Holy crap this is going to let me move some privacy-focused folks over to join me in Kagitopia. Good job guys, you are always working on something cool.

Huh, this looks very neat. I like the effect that happens briefly while you scroll.

Thanks!

Privacy.com is what I've used the past half decade

That's not an oxymoron.

If before the top show was seen by 90% of all customers, and now each of 20 shows is watched by 5%, it will be comparatively very hard to find someone who has watched the most-viewed show of today despite it being the most watched.

You panned someone for understanding basic math.

The most live viewers of a TV episode was the season finale of MASH in 1983[0] with 106 million.

Unless the population rises to a trillion, it seems hard to imagine there will ever again be so much cultural consciousness directed towards a single show. I do not even know what is on broadcast TV any more.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_watched_televisio...

Less than half the population. So you could pick a random person and say they probably didn’t watch the most popular TV episode.

Remove toddlers, homeless and old people that believe watching TV is a pastime for kids. How many shows today are watched by half the 18-50 population?

I reckon a thing that happens to 50% of the population is as culturally widespread as if it had happened to 100% of it. Because it means one talking to another about it means you hear about it everywhere, since a conversation requires 2 people.

This is not correct. If we want to explain why the sidewalk is wet, and 99% of the time it is because of sprinklers and 1% of the time it is because of rain, then "The sprinklers do not alone explain the wetness", but "The wetness cannot be explained by the sprinklers" is a foolish thing to say.

English is tricky around negatives and groups.

“Wetness of all sidewalks globally can be explained by sprinklers.” <- obviously false.

“Wetness of sidewalks can never be explained by sprinklers.” <- also obviously false

The first applies to all sidewalks as a group, the second applies to subsets of the overall group so it’s false if any subset can be explained by sprinklers. Both quotes are using my first example due to being inclusive and including: “on a social level” and “population-level”

Everyone saying "This isn't a speedup, this is VSCode stopping being dumb" hasn't read carefully enough:

The speedup is from taking extension code built on a limited API and implementing it inside VSCode, using more information while doing so.

I read it as extension developers will never be able to match core since their api is limited.

I mean, yes? That's kind of the point of extensions; to provide additional functionality through specific APIs.

Chrome/Safari/Firefox extensions certainly don't have full access to everything the browser can do. Nor can IntelliJ plugins. Nor can... practically any other implementation of extensions.

https://github.com/microsoft/vscode is available if a developer wanted to contribute something to core, anyway.

Emacs stands in stark contrast to this claim, though. Some things do get moved into native code so that it can run faster, but at large most of it is implemented in the same code and paths that everyone has access to at runtime.

(For examples of "to run faster," I'm talking of json and such. Calling out to the tree-sitter library is there, too. I'm not clear why that has to be native, oddly.)

I can certainly understand and agree with browsers having more locked down sections. For expert developer tools, though, it does feel a touch weirder.