Take a break and remember that arguing with folks spreading nonsense will only waste your time. Many developers are entitled. I recently spent the day poking at an entitled dev, but it just went in circles. They won't admit entitlement, but it's precisely what it is...

I’m using it for my memry app, and it’s great! ❤️

Fixed. Was an easy one to solve.

Can you tell this isn't a native Mac app? It's Avalonia. I spent a few days seeing how close I could get to a SwiftUI macOS feel, and I think it's pretty damn close. Mac users, I'd love your honest verdict. memry.plus/

Looks like the screen recording software lagging on the replacement cursor animation. Unless you’re pointing out something else other than the hover state looking like it’s activated early?

Not sure what we’ll do with it yet. It might become a sample app.

Its named Memry but only because I needed a name for the solution 🫣

I’m adding this format to my repertoire! 😂

I welcome this! Long form will be a much better format. My interest isn’t in catching you out. I’m trying to understand how the principles you’re invoking actually produce the very strong conclusions you’ve reached. A written argument would be much easier to analyse fairly.

If sufficiently serious maintainer harm can outweigh fidelity, say that. But we have to be able to test the principle against both cases.

You can’t refuse the counterfactual because you disagree with its stipulated outcome, then claim the principle passes the reasonable-rejection test. If fidelity always defeats the maintainer’s objection, say that.

But comparative counterfactual testing is structurally central to the Scanlonian framework you’ve been relying on. I’m asking you to hold everything else constant and assume the maintainer’s objection is stronger, specifically to test whether your principle survives that case.

If you now want to say that where maintainer harm is genuinely greater, the maintainer’s objection wins, then say that. But that’s a different answer…

You answered: “Still the consumer, because you broke the principle of fidelity.” So under a hypothetical in which maintainer harm is greater, you still give the consumer priority because of fidelity. That’s not my characterisation of your position. That’s the answer you gave.

I didn’t “assess” that the maintainer’s harm was greater. It was the stipulated fact in the hypothetical. I explicitly asked you to assume that the maintainer’s loss was greater than the consumers’ switching costs and asked who then had the stronger objection.

And it means we’re back to the question I’ve been asking from the beginning: why can’t the maintainer reasonably reject a principle that gives that promise such overriding force over their future choices?

So comparative harm isn’t actually determining the outcome. The consumer’s objection has priority because you believe publishing OSS creates a promise of fidelity that overrides the maintainer’s greater harm. That’s a much clearer statement of your position.

Thank you. I think that finally answers the question. Even where we stipulate that the maintainer suffers substantially greater harm, you say the consumer still has the stronger objection because of fidelity.

Yet when measuring the maintainer’s harm from being required to leave that same project, you assume the accumulated attention, reputation and commercial opportunity simply follows them to a new project. You can’t have it both ways.

But “most likely it preserves it” is an assumption, not an answer. Your own argument says consumers have substantial investment and switching costs tied to the existing project. That’s why you say their objection carries such weight.