@voooooogel Good counterargument. I think I was thinking of 'well it was default unfaithful already for various reasons and now we have this on top' rather than the other way around.
in reply to: 2041952176185209310
same thread: 2041952176185209310 2041957378854416616 2041971613315559777 2041975805245587848 2041978775198691703 2041980260305269071 2041987235084751185 2041988267982385348 2041988987011920111 2041990464325480518 2041991951105585422 2041993089951396319 2041994557248958467
Reproduced against link rot, credited and linked to its original. Yours and you’d rather it weren’t here? Open an issue.