Maybe talk to her, and communicate your desire as explicitly as you just did to the internet?

Y'all'quaeda

You dare mock the son of a shepherd?!

I've heard this approach called the "continuity of identity", referring to the fact that the thing existed the whole time, even while being slowly replaced

It's less about refactoring and more about navigation of your code while editing. Ever wanted to delete a single word? daw deletes the word your cursor is currently in. How about "copy everything up to (but not including) the nearest "D" on the current line? yfD.

The whole point is that editing code in the middle of writing it, not just refactoring it, is immensely faster.

Probably scalded

Ranger*

before the what, op?

BEFORE THE WHAT??

sweats, knowing a time-traveler in our midst refused to tell us about the coming copilocalypse

Easier to store in my cabinet alongside the other boxes

Please, lower it for the rest of us then, because it just looked like you were being insulting for no reason from my end.

"I know, no ETAs, but can you give an ETA?" 😂

While I'm not a lawyer, the MIT license is very short. It very clearly states that the MIT license shall be included in any projects that include copies or substantial portions of the MIT-licensed source code. As a result, any projects that are modifications/forks of an MIT-licensed project are, inherently, forced to have the MIT license included with them.

Or in short: You can't take an MIT licensed project, modify it, and remove the MIT license because of your modifications.

As such, 2xx04 is technically in violation of the MIT license. The main thing I don't know is whether that gives you the right to treat 2xx04's repository as though it is MIT license. However, you forked the original project, which means 2xx04 is directly referenced by your repository. To be honest, unless I intended to make money off such a project ... I wouldn't sweat it too hard.