I bought CLion's license for many years for personal use. I could easily work on c++ and python on the same project, and could still use it for Rust (same project or not). I decided to stop with the license when they deprecated Rust's plugin in favor of RustRover. I don't like jumping around between "different" IDEs.

So someone who wrote their own functional operating system and browser from scratch which he is now targeting the public with, is not comfortable learning something new?

You are all assuming that the project will be c++ only when the authors haven't said anything about the matter. Who knows if they aren't open to moving to rust? The project is originally in c++, not only but, because that's what the target OS supported. There are examples of other browser moving from c++ to rust (Firefox) who says they can't do the same?

Let's be honest, we both were childish :)

English is not my first language. I saw the mistake and left it here. You fixated on that simple mistake instead of answering the main point

I'm not sure 10 years old are allowed on the internet. Isn't it time for Coco and bed?

I agree that Rust would be an interesting choice for this project but there's a reason why this particular project is done in C++

I don't buy that at all. If you read about Apollo, and before that, you'll see that simply this stuff is hard and many times you have things "half-assed" and just take the risk. Another case is the Space Shuttle..

With that said I think Boeing has been too unreliable for manned space flight. I don't trust much the "we're just taking time to gather more data" and this to me is the bad part about private companies: they have no compulsion to be truthful to the public.

What are you on about? Yes they made sure their gadgets were easy to use, but Apple and Jobs were the pinnacle of "locking you in" on their ecosystem for the profit of it. Sure they weren't as careless about users when compared to Microsoft but they weren't too favourable of you using anything else. They invented this stuff.

Yes exactly. These companies hold rights for far too long in the hopes they can "milk that cow" at any chance they have. The products of these (and many others) companies are electronic waste for many after a while and so normal copyright laws shouldn't hold for them, it's just too wasteful.

That's because these consoles and source code are not always compatible. To make them it would cost them time, money and the compromise to maintain them.

I would rather these companies to be forced to open source their older hardware and source code, so the community could do something with them and not have all the hardware laid to waste. Or at least support the development of emulators

Public attention to the matter of climate change. Sorry that I didn't spell it out for you.

Yes I got that but my point still stands, and you're still contradicting yourself.

Care to answer my question though? Because if you have not a single idea what form of protest could actually sway the people you claim to want to reach, we can just as well continue with the cornstarch

You should read my last paragraph slower then.

keep public attention high

There it is. You want attention no matter if it's positive or not. Which type of support do you expect to gather by vandalising monuments? Encourage public debate by vandalising monuments?

Normal protests, even if "angrier" would be better than this. Earn peoples' trust and respect

Ok so what is the tactic here? They are vandalising a monument for what end if not attention? Talk me through the reasoning