Without necessarily endorsing the article's ideas....I took this to be like the diamond-inheritance problem.
If service A feeds both B and C, and they both feed service D, then D can receive an incoherent view of what A did, because nothing forces B and C to keep their stories straight. But B and C can still both be following their own spec perfectly, so there's no bug in any single service. Now it's not clear whose job it is to fix things.
OOPs = "object-oriented programming", BUT it's a more restrained and thoughtful complaint than just "objects suck" or "inheritance sucks". He cabins it pretty clearly at 11:00 minutes in: "compile-time hierarchy of encapsulation that matches the domain model was a mistake"
I've seen a db mock work when 1) there was a small subteam in charge of the OR-mapping, schema structure, and included a DBA; and 2) also a design policy from the architect that all objects had to come out of factories. Under those specific circumstances, having the mock - used solely as a per-developer object cache imitating the factory interface - was critical for unblocking the people working on business logic and front-end.
I like this - nice playing around. We usually think of this kind of tree as having directed edges from parent to child, e.g. from set to element. In your graphs, you're erasing the direction of the edges, which uncovers a neat little symmetry that I never thought about before.
All the (non-limit) von Neumann ordinals are of the form X+1 = {X, {X}}, where X is the previous ordinal in the set. If you just look at trees of this form:
X+1: X <- node -> {X}, or X <- node -> node -> X
then you ignore the direction of the parent-child relation, you get this:
X+1: X -- node -- node -- X
So that's why your trees are symmetric as undirected graphs; and of course, every lower ordinal has its own version of this symmetry, which is also contained in the tree. All the large gaps between sections correspond to node--node edges of the larger ordinals. Kinda neat!
They are different: in the U.S. that's why "freedom of the press" is also written down in the First Amendment, and historically, that's exactly how the U.S. courts have interpreted the phrase "freedom of the press" - as a (pretty) general right for anyone to use any media technology they can access to spread any ideas they want. There are always some limits, but from the start "the press" meant "the printing press", not "institutionalized news organizations". It's a general technology-usage right, not a specialized right for a certain group. Everyone is allowed to do more than just talk, or even shout. People can have different opinions on how wise that right is, but in the US at least, you are indeed free to broadcast your nonsense to millions of people, if you have the resources.
Alice is taking a small unfair advantage of every member of the community at once. A community and its practices is a form of commons shared by the members, so it's vulnerable to the tragedy of the commons. If one member acts in a way that deliberately goes against the trust, that's inherently unfair to the rest of the members because it tends to push everything toward a breaking point. If her goal depends on the community's existence or function (which if it doesn't, why is she even around?), then whatever her goal, Alice has gone after it in a way that takes unfair advantage of everyone else's commitment to the system. Even if Alice's action doesn't cause a final breakdown, she's moved things in the wrong direction for her own purposes.