Gee, maybe it sounds like YOU'RE projecting, friend-o.
I merely clarified an unspoken point, which is not to be confused with holding the view. Understanding a thing is not identifying with a thing. Get your head straight.
Ugh, god damn it. This is bad news for reasons beyond medical intervention.
Consider the premise of gangrene or any scenario involving necrotized flesh in contact with living flesh. If an infectious proteinaceous agent gets beyond protective barriers, whether via artificial or natural means, with sufficient dose or load, you'll get pathology. Which is to say, whether in a clinical experimental setting or not, this can happen to organisms.
There's a name for this. I forget what it is, but I remember having the principle explained to me, and thinking to myself: "Holy fucking shit, this is some seriously out-of-touch economic high-finance quantit=ative bullshit." Like, the kind that always expects all graphs to go "up and to the right."
Basically, you sit down at a restaurant, order a meal, and on the way out, the host or hostess ask you to mark off checkboxes rating the experience on a scall of 0 to 11. Eleven being the Spinal Tap interpretation, and Zero being the hospital visit.
We now face three realities at this point, completely disconnected and untethered from one another, doomed to resolve as if it were some Cellular Automaton rule set from hell.
On the customer's side of things, maybe they let their small child mark the check boxes to satisfy the child's curiosity, maybe it's the waitress' mom dropping by for a visit to take pictures at their first summer job. Maybe it's an actual normal customer, a random person with with a pulse, fresh off the street. Anything goes. Straight A's or all balls.
The wait staff, have no control and don't actually know how they're being judged. By what criteria, or rules. They just know what it means to wait tables. They've been in a restaurant before, and they know what middle of the road is. Unless specifically advised of the level of service, they observe their surroundings, and follow their instinct, drawing on prior experience and whatever they learn as they go.
The analyst that receives the feedback however, operates according to rules both alien and strange to normal people. Only 9, 10 and 11 are positive ratings. All others are an insult to the business, and all parties associated with an 8 rating or less must be eliminated from the system. They don't want to see paying customers that aren't ecstatic, nor do they want employees delivering service that catches a middling rating. To them, a 9 represents a danger zone, threatening profits with a backslide.
The person who explained this principle to me was my boss' boss, and it was in this moment that I knew the ship I was on was aimed at an iceberg, and that I needed to escape. He was referring to our OKR process, while simultaneously explaining this principle in relation to our review process. It was a very "Steve Ballmer/Stack Ranking/Cut the Weakest Link" sort of discussion, and I stuck my thumb out and found another job, for better pay, and less demand within weeks.
This usually solves for weird, deprecations, and routes around profoundly unfriendly browser barriers, which, sadly and admittedly are required from a security standpoint for most clueless users.
I prefer using Eclipse over IntelliJ CE, because Eclipse settings for static libraries that aren't handled by source control are a bit more concrete. IntelliJ CE is well-suited for many professional coding activities, but buries some commonly used, yet clunky settings that are right on the surface with Eclipse. Namely JRE/JDK choices, and build path settings for static jar files.
On the other hand, you might need to know a bit about Java, to do this. For most HN users, and even many gamers, this is generally not too much of a problem.
I merely clarified an unspoken point, which is not to be confused with holding the view. Understanding a thing is not identifying with a thing. Get your head straight.