Hi! What I'm not quite getting from a cursory overview of the docs is how does RAC overlay overlapping decisions over each other? My mental model is a Docker overlay filesystem where RAC somehow manages to construct a cohesive view of the entire set of decisions over time, but how does that happen deterministically?
Let's say ADR 1 specifies users are unique by e-mail and should be soft-deleted, and ADR 2 says users are unique by username. Will RAC pick up on the fact that users still need to be soft-deleted? Is there a lot of manual "reference ADR 1 from ADR 2" to help with determinism?
This is one of my pet peeves. Not the "anti-social" character described in the post, but rather the poster's attitude. I've tried a few times to formulate to myself what it is that irks me, let's see if I manage to do it today:
1. Not every social interaction can (or should) be an objective weighing of ideas. It's not the other person's responsibility to enter into a formal debate with you at your local dive bar or whatever.
2. For their opinions to be valid, the other person doesn't need to conform to your idea of an acceptable conversation style (see 1). Also, in my experience, "anti-social" responses are detected more readily in the other person than in yourself, you're not as cool and collected as you think you are.
3. Feelings aren't forbidden. You may be a bit repressed yourself, meaning you feel shame or disgust when confronted with other people's feelings. Guess what... that's also a feeling!
4. If you repeatedly encounter these "anti-social" people in your life (which I guess OP does since he wrote a post about it) there's one common denominator: you. Can you honestly measure up to your own rules, OP? It takes two to tango.
5. There's a good chance you're sandbagging your conversation, meaning you're talking about some topic that you've thought about a lot, to a completely unprepared party. In my experience with people making complaints like OP, this is often combined with a controversial opinion about said topic. Instead of truly testing your idea against someone, you provoke an emotional reaction and celebrate your superiority because you staid calm and the other person exploded. Charlie Kirk was good at this unless he encountered actual experts.
6. Related to the above: come on, it's perfectly normal to get defensive and upset when you find you're losing an argument, don't act like you don't do it.
I'm tempted to take the opposite stance to the author. The web as a platform is wildly successful, and it's interesting to think about why.
Surely the "loose" standards encouraged neat hacks that at some point were encoded as best practices and then standardized. Maybe that would tempt us to want to "cut the cruft" but a) people probably thought that many times previously and b) backwards compatibility is probably more valuable than one would think.