What is it about their license that bothers you? It seems pretty fair to me... Free for personal use, pay for commercial, unless you are a nonprofit or a single employee company. Did I miss something?

(I assume you mean EULA: https://obsidian.md/eula)

Some us based companies forbid to use obsidian due to this clause in license:

This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the Province of Ontario and the laws of Canada applicable in that Province. Any action or proceeding arising from or relating to this Agreement may only be brought in the courts located in Kitchener, Ontario and each party irrevocably submits to such exclusive jurisdiction and venue.

I don't want to have to separate my notes between work and personal. Sometimes in my daily journal I will think about work things. That would requires me to pay $50 a year for an editor to edit Markdown files. That seems steep even if mostly I use it for personal use.

A solution springs to mind, but I fear it would be impolite to state it directly.

Well my solution is to use an editor that is free, open source, and is not burdened by a license that cares not what information I store in it's memory nor how many other people I organize with.

I agree. This is my solution also.

Obsidian's license terms are weirder than expected. But I'd never hesitate to use a Personal license for random, incidental professional purposes.

But I'm much happier to avoid thinking about the question altogether.

Thanks. Also, disabling 1st party js works in this case.

> ...there are fish that breathed in impact debris as it rained down from the sky.

That... is either very poorly worded or obviously not true.

That said, I can't wait to see what we will think about these fossils a decade later. Right now the news seems a bit too sensationalist to be believed fully.

> I can't wait to see what we will think about these fossils a decade later.

That is actually I think the proper attitude towards cutting edge research.

> That... is either very poorly worded or obviously not true.

But fish do breath. They filter water through their gills to do gas exchange. This process is called breathing. Why do you think it is obviously not true? (Or rather how would you word it better?)

Added to that there are fish that breath normal air like we do. Those are known as labyrinth fish. A common example is the Betta (or Siamese fighting) fish.

I didn't mean to imply that fish don't breathe.

The part as it rained down from the sky, to me, means that they were breathing the particles while they were falling from the sky. Not possible unless they were above water (which, granted, is possible for short periods), which would go against the fact that they were fish.

>Not possible

Stuff rains down from the sky, stuff enters water, fish start breathing in the stuff that rained down from the sky as more of the same stuff continues to rain down from the sky I don't know, seems possible to me.

Presumably fish don't breathe things that are in the sky

Things that are in the sky can fall into the water. “Rained down from the sky” implies this pretty plainly when the context is talking about fish, who are generally understood to be down below the sky in… water. “Down from,” not “in” the sky.

Not to mention that the fish in question seem to have been in a shallow "sloshing flood" at the time.

It says "as it rained down" from the sky -- once it hits the water it is no longer raining down.

I think it’s a reasonable assumption that once they were breathing it, there was more of it concurrently raining down, so the description seems fine to me.

It would continue to fall through the water but a lower speed. The water would be filled with tectonic debris which the fish breathed in.

I do the opposite. Because VSCode helpfully highlights the bits that were changed, I don't want to lose this indicator because of a commit, so I often postpone commits until I am ready to move to another part of feature. Then I use 'git add -p' to make multiple smaller commits, and finally push to remote origin. I don't treat commits as safelines, instead I try to make them logical explanations of the reasons for the changed code.

My safeguard is "undo", but I rarely need it. If I do, I just copy the contents of the file to a new one (ctrl n, ctrl a, ctrl c, ctrl tab, ctrl v) before undoing the wrong path - because any change on older version will break redo history, unfortunately.

Yup. Sometimes it looks like they are trying to intentionally sabotage an otherwise great product. The regressions in UX are infuriating.

Still, it is the only non-WebKit option out there, so there's that. And they at least claim to care abour user's privacy.

Bill Gates? This obviously depends on your opinion of Microsoft, but some of us still remember IE.

I get some of us don't like him, but nobody has done more to popularize personal computing. That is value creation whether you like it or not.