Others have commented that many of these are general shell or terminal quoting problems.
Something that stood out for me is that the author did not mention ^V, which is very useful in quoting metacharacters. Take the tab example: The author seems to imply that PCRE is needed to match a tab because there is no \t escape sequence in BRE/ERE. Presumably he cannot just type in a tab because he's using a shell like bash, and tab has a special interpretation and cannot be typed in as a string literal.
The way around this is to use ^V as a terminal escape sequence, followed by simply pressing the tab key. This technique can be used to insert other control characters as string literals in arguments. Want to grep for EOF? "grep ^V^D" will get you there.
The answer to #4 is probably that the goal isn't to always have ice cream. The goal is to run a profitable business.
Doubling the cost of the ice cream infrastructure to avoid a 25% downtime may not be a profitable venture -- especially if the downtime is scheduled to occur while the store is closed.
Here's the catch: Large buffer sizes only increase efficiency for sequential reads. mmap() is still much faster for random access within a file. Doubly so, because we need to not just read() but also lseek() for every read.
The inefficiencies of read() can be minimized in the sequential case only.
Yes, the overhead is per-syscall. The number of read() syscalls shrinks as the per-call buffer grows.
With mmap() of course we only ever have one syscall to create the initial mapping. Everything else is a memory read.
We can get read() down to just one syscall too, with a 4G buffer ;) I can't recall if GB sized buffers are possible, but I have certainly used MB sized read buffers for exactly this reason.
Well, we generally do not prohibit abusive speech.
What's prohibited is targeting people with speech who do not wish to participate (or who cannot, statutorily). Plenty of adults freely choose to engage in abusive relationships with one another and of course they are free to do so provided the other party is a willing participant.
The same is true of non-abusive language. Consider a simple romantic overture.
I don't think the person you're replying to is being dishonest. You've simply listed reasons as to why this content isn't acceptable. Of course there are often reasons why content and beliefs might be rejected by mainstream thought -- "it's a pack of lies" is chief among them.
There's a definition problem here. We could use "no one is talking about removing the content" as a rubric to determine whether content is truly outside of mainstream thought for example.
Pointing out that there's diversity among mainstream thought is not at all the same as tolerating dissent.
What does "1 inch narrower" mean to you, in the context of this analogy? Are you suggesting the interfaces have different names? Different sized arguments?
None of those things would work.
Besides, creating minor differences do not solve this problem as they would still be derivative works.
And this is why Google had to copy the interface -- otherwise their runtime would not operate with other existing products. As you can see given your example, the analogy is a perfect fit.
Your argument that the copying is once-removed is unfortunately irrelevant to copyright law.
The car's width is absolutely its interface with respect to roadway interoperability.
We aren't talking about user interfaces here. This lawsuit does not involve UX. We are talking about interfaces between functional components. The analogy is spot on.
Requiring employers to fund PPE purchases seems like a reasonable answer to this problem. $10/day/employee is a modest cost of doing business when compared with other labor expenses.
We have made other mandated changes which have been vastly more expensive.
"But the full-time drivers are the one stakeholder class that created much of Uber's value"
This is not a true statement. Uber is not worth $55b because they have performed a lot of driving work. Uber is worth $55b because they have constructed a system in which driving work can be easily scheduled and allocated.
The value is the system and the system was not created by drivers.
The system was created to serve drivers and riders together.
"yet receive very little of the value they created."
They have received all of the value from the driving work they performed, in the form of a 1099 paycheck. There is a fairly clear market rate for driving work.
They did not contribute to the construction of the $55b system.