No one, either in comments, nor in article, actually touches on form factor. The fact is that sedans are only good for moving people, but there’s better options for that: like cycling or train. The real benefit of an SUV’s form factor (or pickup, or station wagon, or hatchback) is that you can move cargo with it, the kind of stuff that you can’t move with efficient people movers.

Counter argument: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle

problem seems to be […] intertwined language with culture

You lost the argument right here. Language is as fundamental to culture as the sky is blue.

The rest of your post amounts to “communication is important to function” and you are not wrong on that front. But you put no weight on the importance of culture too.

Consider this your wakeup call, that just because you don’t personally care about society having an identity doesn’t mean the rest of us don’t.

Because many people don’t see it that way. Many people see this more as a “stop defending yourself” statement.

In reality, this is a very difficult situation for everyone that can only end in one of two ways: listening to grievances on ALL sides and finding compromise (which usually results in no one getting what they want), or more bloodshed.

On a side note, I smell the implication that internal debate within a party, or changing policy in response to public sentiment is some kind of weakness. In reality, this is the healthiest manifestation of democracy. If someone can’t respect that, then all I can say is they have no business calling themselves Canadian.

The carbon sequestered in the earth in the form of coal, oil and gas hasn’t always been in the earth. After all, hydro carbons are in fact hundreds of millions of years of dead trees buried under mud sequestering atmospheric CO2. Which implies there was a time with all that CO2 in the air yet still trees to capture it. By releasing it all, we reset the biosphere’s clock to about a time when earth supported a different kind of life (one without us in it), but life nonetheless.

Frankly, the comparisons to Mars and Venus seem a bit overblown.

Driving off with the rental car is a fine analogy if we were comparing this to not returning a DVD you rented.

But this is not that. And that is kind of the point.

Piracy is a breach of contract for sure. The point the author is trying to make is that our current licensing contracts around media are out of touch with the social contract (you pay for something, you get it).

Hence the moral hazard. So companies will flaunt the social contract (like in the case of Sony) with impunity but will get rightous as soon as people flaunt the legal contract. It’s a double standard, where all the power is in the hands of those with the biggest legal department.

You can’t define “theft” untill you first define justice. And if consumers and media holders can’t even agree to a just system, then why bother categorizing anything as theft at all?

I used to be html and css-first, and to some degree I still am, but the advantages of SPA, lazy load, hot reload, and automatic state management and Dom rendering of a JS based framework are just too awesome to forego for the sake of staying native.

I know about HTMX but it’s not really JS-less. It just creates the illusion that no JS is written. It still gets implemented in the browser with JS.

Typing characters is maybe 1% of the job. The other 99% is understanding how the change affects everything else. Changing a single line of code in a function called by 1000 other functions each themselves called in 10 other functions can still potentially be more work and a bigger change than changing 9000 lines of code in a function called once.

Debatable whether minified JS is “open source”, in the same way that compiled machine code is technically still visible, just unfeasible to comprehend (despite, or perhaps in spite of decompilers).

Anyway, minified JS lacks comments and prompts to read from. The explanation I have accepted is just the sheer massive quantity of JS code and libraries coupled with all the documentation surrounding it.

Professional engineering is really about implementing processes and procedures that create reliable and dependable systems. Ultimately it’s about responsibility and risk management. Being an engineer has nothing to do with understanding or implementing technology or technical details and specifications (unless you are in an extremely junior level engineering position). That work already has another title: that’s called being a technologist (and there ain’t nothing wrong with that title and that work).

Very, very, very few technologists (including self-taught programmers, computer scientists, and even some engineering grads) have, or even understand the skills needed to manage technical risk, simply because those skills are not part of any of those curriculums and the licensure required to be recognized to conduct those activities. It requires knowledge, training, and certification specifically, not just a university degree or x years on the job. Of course, it’s not the sort of distinction that the general public understands by “engineering” since the public kind of just takes the act of technical risk management for granted.

Conversely, it’s perhaps also why the number of engineers with hands-on skills is shockingly lower than we expect: using technology is not on the engineering curriculum.

But yeah, just because the general public confuses technical skills with engineering doesn’t give you, lacking all three of : an accredited engineering degree, an engineering licence, and perhaps most importantly, malpractice insurance, licence to call yourself an engineer.

What does “stale code” even mean in this context?

Does that mean it falls behind stable? Just merge stable into your branch; problem solved.

Or is this just some coded language for “people aren’t adopting my ideas fast enough”. Stop bitching and get good.