FWIW, I was hesitant about obsidian for the same reasons. I would've preferred an open source editor and a syntax like asciidoc. But the fact that everything is markdown and it being such a common standard does make obsidian being closed source more palatable[1]. And tbh, for note-taking/"second brain" purposes, a relatively constrained format like markdown is pretty suitable. I wouldn't want it for technical writing but it serves the purpose for quick and dirty tasks like quickly jotting down notes[2]. And any other markdown language wouldn't have the same amount of tooling (e.g. org-mode is underspecified and essentially emacs-only unless you see stick to a specific subset of features)
[1]: see the creator's blog post: ["File Over App"](https://stephango.com/file-over-app)
[2]: in an ideal world a more sane/context-free syntax like Djot would have been nice
I understand the definition of "Freedom" as laid out by e.g. the FSF. I was explaining why your argumentation is not convincing unless the audience already agrees that complicity in genocide is an acceptable tradeoff to software freedoms. I'm saying you could make a more convincing argument by just not making that comparison in the first place. Unless your point was "perhaps we should reconsider whether Open Source is Good".
I don't know if "freedom to modify source code" and "committing a genocide" are morally comparable. This seems to undermine your point. I would have picked a different analogy
The bool_ data type is very similar to the Python bool but does not inherit from it because Python’s bool does not allow itself to be inherited from, and on the C-level the size of the actual bool data is not the same as a Python Boolean scalar.
and likewise:
The int_ type does not inherit from the int built-in under Python 3, because type int is no longer a fixed-width integer type.
For those coming from the future: https://lobste.rs/s/aa7ske/anubis_now_supports_non_js_challenges