> In general, I think it’s a very bad look to endorse murder.
Stopped reading right there. You don't need to endorse it to recognize that all other means of redress have been corrupted or hijacked. If you leave someone only one option, don't be surprised when they take that course of action.
StackOverflow has been in trouble for a while. That became obvious to me when the moderators went on strike. The site was being spammed with AI-generated questions and answers to farm reputation, and the site ownership forbade moderators from enforcing rules against AI-generated content via a secret dictate they weren't allowed to publicly reveal. The site's activity has been declining, and apparently allowing the highly problematic AI-generated content is the only available avenue for further "growth". It's like google degrading search results to artificially inflate the number of queries to create the appearance of growth. It's short-sighted, to say the least.
The linked question isn't really a programming question. Maybe a better fit on SuperUser. But IMO it's tangential, close enough that it could be allowed. If you want real growth, relax the rules for humans, not for AI spam.
The author seems to be offering a false dichotomy. His strawman argument is to offer platform-specific specified behavior for UB, but then concludes that that would make optimization impossible, operating on a presumption that that behavior must be specified in terms of assembler instructions.
Why not specify behavior in terms that are abstract but simple and sensible for the specific platform, at which point you can continue to optimize on the basis of the as-if principle?
Edge, Bing, and Safari do not have majority market share. It would still please me to see these companies broken up. They have their own obnoxious and/or harmful practices that are the result or of attempts to be monopolistic.
We can control what we do, but not what other parties do. Anyone who has been following along is well aware that the other side has already been doing. We can choose to be prepared, or to be unprepared. We are watching the consequences of being unprepared play out on social media, in politics, and economically. In reality, there is no choice and we've already been far, far too willing to defer preparation to "avoid escalation", and yet the escalation has occurred all the same. The hesitancy has been interpreted as validation that we will not respond to escalation. This is history rhyming.
Not all recalls involve disposing of a product. Apparently in this case it does. I'd have thought they could just send out some correction stickers to slap on there, but I suppose food labeling laws could be too rigid to allow for this, or else concerns about stickers being misapplied.
The conclusion of the article seems to be that passwords should be encrypted with asymmetric encryption instead of being hashed. I really couldn't disagree more. We see how competently companies manage their security. It's very easy to imagine a scenario like a company using the same key to encrypt every password. They accidentally push it to github or otherwise get it compromised and now a dumped database becomes a table of plaintext passwords, no rainbow tables needed.
What we really got wrong about passwords is using them in the first place. I don't know know anything about how passkeys are implemented. I would hope they aren't tied into any OAuth nonsense (IMO OAuth is a cure worse than the disease), but even if the implementation were flawed, passkeys are the right kind of solution: cryptographic authentication that plays to the computer's strength instead of depending on something humans aren't good at.
The point wasn't that you can't find people on twitter. The point is that nobody should be patronizing it. It is fundamentally hostile toward you (though not necessarily overtly), and by being one of the people supporting it, the aggregate effect is that you are working contrary to your own interests. This is true of social media in general, but nobody can hold a candle to Nu Twitter.
Xitter is not designed for productive or healthy engagement. For all the excuses people give for still being there, I think it ultimately comes down to laziness and, to put it charitably, "risk aversion". Not wanting to put in the effort to find content or an audience elsewhere, and fear of pulling the plug before you do. Not sure how patronizing and supporting awful people (i.e. the ownership) is "teenage level" anything. Nothing wrong with being a better person and letting your behavior follow from your beliefs instead of settling for cakes and circuses.
Often when Russia does something that appears foolish to the west, it's because it is for internal propaganda purposes. The west is not the intended audience.
I think I would sooner argue that refusing to take a safe vaccine and exposing others (or yourself if you have dependents) to potentially serious but largely avoidable diseases would be the greater violation.
If you're running a version of windows that includes group policy editor, it does. Given the way windows 10+ disregards if not outright changes settings, I wouldn't exactly bet my life or my PC on it anyways.
My specific point, at any rate, was that Windows does not respect settings regarding metered connection.
Stopped reading right there. You don't need to endorse it to recognize that all other means of redress have been corrupted or hijacked. If you leave someone only one option, don't be surprised when they take that course of action.