> This whole notion of "documentation can get out of sync with the code, so it's better not to write it at all" is so nonsensical.
I do believe that in a lot of case an outdated, wrong or plain erroneous documentation does more harm than no documentation. And while the correct solution is obviously "update the doc when we update the code", it has been empirically proven not to work across a range of projects.
You might have some success selling this "technology" to wedding invitation printers and similar websites. They always have trouble demonstrating the various paper options / partial glossy / metalic cut out options
You seem to only conceive of the web as "html+JS frontend communicating in real time to some server"
We have decades of distributed systems without a central server. Such as git, bit-torrent, Mastodon, Matrix, and the whole web3 mess. It's for these use-case that CRDT helps solve real problems.
You are complaining that the allergens information takes room on your restaurant menu.
We the people, through our democratic processes, have asked companies for transparency of their tracking process, the industry have decided as a whole to say fuck off and made the process as painful as possible.
Yes, the companies are evil/stupid villains on this case.
Not everything needs bloody philosophy.
It was actually refused by ad & publisher networks. They really wanted the capacity to "convince" the user that their tracking is very special and good for them.
That when you need a given feature, you will more probably find an actively maintained package which cover it and is compatible with the rest of your dependencies/framework.
"The social network" does not make Mark Zuckerberg look bad. He looks like a poor socially inept nerd who got scammed by Parker, it makes one want to pity him.
The very notion of identity thievery is "BigMoney" (banks and credit rating) putting on their customer the responsiblity of what we used to call fraud.
We used to have a Do-Not-Track header, which all websites promptly ignored.
The hard part is having a legally-binding standard
Given the current available API, I'd imagine the law-maker could have decided to write in the law 'consent must be collected through a javascript window.confirm() popup'
First of all, it's not "don't do marketing", it's don't do "user-tracking-and-profiling based advertising". Marketing is so much more, like actual market research to provide a service users actually want.
You have to handle a "right to be forgotten" query within a month, surely this is enough time for one sysop to run a prepared query. If your database is so byzantine that you cant find all reference to a given customer, you are either google or in need of a new architect.
Backups do not need to be deleted immediately, they should however expires and be destroyed in accordance to your data retention policy (Say what you do, do as you say).
I'd like to sell you some cough medication, it's all natural, made from a concentrate of two south-american plant called "coca" and "tabaco", everyone who tries keep asking for more, even when we increased the price !
Too bad the big bad governement regulation prevent me from selling it. It's absolutely ridiculous, all my customers wants it and I pay my taxes.
As a company/developer starting from scratch, there is really no complexity nor landmines : Do as you say, Say what you do, Give the user options.
You can offer the user the choice between targeted advertising or non-targeted.
You can offer the user the choice between paid subscription or advertising.
Cant get enough users to pay or consent ? Then you did not find market-fit in the real world.
I do believe that in a lot of case an outdated, wrong or plain erroneous documentation does more harm than no documentation. And while the correct solution is obviously "update the doc when we update the code", it has been empirically proven not to work across a range of projects.