Typically in a "source license" the only restriction is keeping the source proprietary, you may only distribute binaries and you may not sublicense access to the source. So you have access to it in your project forever. Like I mentioned before, it keeps your fate in your hands since you have a perpetual license to the source.

Sort of, but I'm also addressing the misconception of open source being required to get the rights to source code; that source access can happen with proprietary code too. All that open source adds is that the licensee's customers would get source access too.
Another old concept related to all this is "eating your own dog food". Getting the company to use a product internally, and letting any company developers view the source is hardly anything new. Although generally there was often a courtesy of letting someone on the dev team know what you found before updating the source. So maybe this courtesy not being required adds a little novelty (and risk).

Visual Studio Code source code is on GitHub.

"This repository ("Code - OSS") is where we (Microsoft) develop the Visual Studio Code product. Not only do we work on code and issues here, we also publish our roadmap, monthly iteration plans, and our endgame plans. This source code is available to everyone under the standard MIT license."
https://github.com/microsoft/v...

This is not anything new. Proprietary code is sometimes made available under binary licenses or source licenses. Under the latter you may only distribute binaries, the source may NOT be distributed, but you are free to modify it and ship your modified binary. This is vital as it allows the licensee of this code to control their own fate and not be dependent upon the original developer. Sharing changes, usually bug fixes, upstream was common.

No, that is mistaken, note that inner source allows collaboration with some outsiders so it is really like a source license. A source license is closer to open source than that. The difference between open source and a source license is that the source code is only available one step from the original developer, not unlimited steps. Developer => Licensee for a source license but Developer => Licensee => User1 => ... => UserN for open source. Or more accurately for Open Source, Developer => Licensee1 => License2 => ... => LicenseeN

An economist looked into this. There might be some long term savings worth considering. Especially so if the car lasts longer due to simplicity (EV vs ICU).
"My Tesla May End Up Costing Me a Lot Less than You'd Think"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/g...

I once had that concern. They I got a Mini as a loaner, gauges in the middle of the dash. It turned out to be a non-issue. It was a glance right rather than a glance down. When considering it more the glancing right kept the road in my peripheral vision a little better. Notice how high the displays are positioned on new Model X and 3. I suspect this to facilitate more of a glance right than down.

Also the Model X still has a second display immediate behind the wheel, er yoke, positioned and presumable configurable to act like a traditional instrument cluster.

I have some recollection that with foreign currency you have more options for defining an accounting system. How a fair market value is determined, when gains/losses are booked, etc. One can choose to keep it simple, or one can choose something more complicated if it is beneficial. And face it the US tax code is engineered to create beneficial situations for some, foreign currency traders probably being among that "some". So one cannot say BTC can be treated as foreign currency, these alternative accounting practices are not available. This is the sort of thing that leads the IRS to say in their FAQ "virtual currency is not treated as currency that could generate foreign currency gain or loss for U.S. federal tax purposes".

I'm not an accountant nor a foreign currency trader, just someone who has had a few accounting and financial classes. What I recall is that there is a certain amount of commonality between the different types of things but then there may be rules and practice that are specific to one type. Foreign currencies were one such type.

Not "if it were designated as an actual currency", rather "because it is designated as property":
""Treat it as an asset" seems to be how the vast majority of people should be dealing with Bitcoin because it is designated as property by tax reporting agencies."

"SECTION 4. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Q–1: How is virtual currency treated for federal tax purposes?
A–1: For federal tax purposes, virtual currency is treated as property. General tax principles applicable to property transactions apply to transactions using virtual currency.
Q–2: Is virtual currency treated as currency for purposes of determining whether a transaction results in foreign currency gain or loss under U.S. federal tax laws?
A–2: No. Under currently applicable law, virtual currency is not treated as currency that could generate foreign currency gain or loss for U.S. federal tax purposes."
https://www.irs.gov/irb/2014-1...

The IRS and other tax authorities care. Which is the point of this entire thread. Its not a currency, its not even a foreign currency. While both assets and foreign currencies may share the concept of a capitol gain/loss I expect there are other nuances. For exampling there may be some trading schemes that allow one accounting methodology or another for determining current values of foreign currencies, booking gains/losses, etc. Things that are not available for assets. So trying to apply foreign currency rules to BTC rather than asset rules could get you into some trouble.

And these rules are the same for any barter exchange of assets. Bitcoin is an asset exchange, not a currency exchange.

As befitting a barter exchange of assets. Its not a currency exchange.

According to the design a 51% attack cannot be performed because the mining community is decentralized both in terms of the people involved and geographically. This all assumed that people would only need their regular computers to engage in "mining", which also maintains the blockchain. A bad player that is an individual could not establish a cartel large enough, a bad player that is a government could not find enough miners in their jurisdiction. We have broken both of these decentralization assumptions.

Its worse than that. Buy a cup of coffee with BTC and you have to note the price you acquired those coins at, the price at the time of the transaction, and calculate a capital gain/loss to report on your taxes. In the US and various other jurisdictions BTC is an asset, hence the capital gain/loss when the asset is traded (for the cup of coffee asset).

Of course wallet software could automate that calculation but they don't at the moment.

Not quite, the rest of the world will carry on as the Chinese government permits. Well, for bitcoin at least, where 70% of the miners are located in China and dependent upon cheap electricity from the government. Basically bitcoin's security model was voluntarily discarded by the community. The adoption of exotic ASIC hardware centralized mining, maintaining the blockchain, and made a government backed 51% attack possible. Lets say reversing transactions the government disapproved of.

Now I admit the Chinese government is unlikely to do any such thing at this moment, however the bitcoin security model was supposed to make this sort of thing impossible not unlikely. Merely unlikely means the security model is broken.

She's concerned about "illicit financing" and "money laundering". That is taken care of by requiring US citizens to use a US-based exchange that confirms the identity of users. That will also make the IRS happy.

So she is not going to shut down crypto, she's probably going to go after anonymity.

Apple also abandoned the partnership in the sense that they canceled the CHRP system, a system that would run both Windows and MacOS.