I'm not one to proselytize since I use a handful of languages every day, but when my Java hat is on, I double click a build target, my software is tested, built, deployed side-by-side with my current production build.
New users are automatically pushed to the new build, and users with existing sessions remain on the previous build. When I undeploy the previous build, the rest of the users start seeing the new build as well.
That's all out of the box with small config tweaks for our environment. It is truly torturous.
Which isn't to say that 1550 nm light is safer -- the mode of destruction is just different, e.g. corneal damage leading to cataracts or surface burns rather than retinal damage.
Typically you select a class of laser safe for the environment it will be used in -- class 1 is typical of LIDAR systems for this reason which poses no eye damage risk.
The same way that Spotify doesn't just ham-fistedly show you all your Facebook messages... and other apps don't show you messages intended for Spotify.
Presumably messages are tagged in such a way that the source and/or destination are intended for Spotify. Using that same system, you should be able to specify "Spotify can only read & write Spotify messages."
Didn't downvote, but your premise that people don't understand that there are heating/cooling cycles is not really a thing for anyone even minutely interested in this area of study.
In fact, here's a very detailed page describing those cycles and why it appears we are deviating from the natural order.
It is insane to me that Microsoft hasn't already provided this. I get that you can't replace VBA entirely, or phase it out, without breaking a Lot of Things, and putting a lot of VBA programmers out of work. But every aspect of this being native to Excel would make macro work and data programming easier for a huge segment of the business world.
In other words, I like what you're doing and will probably buy a license. But... I don't see a license option that looks like it lets me test it out in a commercial environment without paying first. I might just be missing something there though. I'd love to test it out and be in compliance with your licensing.
Honestly, I don't think they get to make that call once the device is in consumer hands. In this case it was for "the greater good", but now the fence posts can be moved in a bit more the next time they feel justified towards remotely manipulating something that isn't theirs.
Their corporate/technical solution towards my exploding washing machine was to just cover up the Heavy Duty and Bedding cycle selectors with a sticker.
Their corporate/technical solution towards their exploding phones was to remotely brick them if they weren't returned by a certain point.
My enthusiasm for their entrance to this market is very low.
The debate is stupid because one side is taking an absolute position against a programming tool that has been used successfully by thousands(millions?) of projects.
The funny thing about the anti-ORM-ists position is that they are either:
1) Exclusively embedding raw SQL in their code, and accessing each query result by also hard-coding column names and value types in map look-ups. Maybe this is a "pure" approach, but it is also very brittle as models evolve.
Or,
2) They develop their own naive ORM implementation without the self-awareness to realize that is what they are doing. As zzzeek said, "If your application has objects, and talks to a relational database to marshal result rows into instances of those objects, you are using an ORM."
Now you propose that the underlying condition most present isn't really a condition.