Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2025 17:06:00 +0300
On Mon, 20 Oct 2025 at 16:56, Oliver Rosten
<oliver.rosten_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> That's a proof of existence but not of wide-spread usage.
I'm not trying to give you such proof. I'm giving you contrary
evidence to the option that it's just "can be in principle".
<oliver.rosten_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> That's a proof of existence but not of wide-spread usage.
I'm not trying to give you such proof. I'm giving you contrary
evidence to the option that it's just "can be in principle".
Received on 2025-10-20 14:06:14