It's surely to the detriment of the manual if the first sentence on the first page assumes you already know the software, but, if nowhere in the manual can it address expert users, then the manual isn't going to be very useful for expert users—and it should be!

I think it's a question of context and familiarity. To a vim user, like me and, I assume, ahmedfromtunis, their examples do indeed seem simple and natural. Presumably, to an emacs user, the example you quote (if it's quoted literally—I don't use emacs and can't even tell) is just as natural, and assuming some comfort with emacs is presumably OK in a manual for the software!

There is no confusion, when in receipt of something written using a word processor, that it was so written, and people are free to respond accordingly (though, of course, most of us don't care). There is no such certainty with products generated by AI, so it is appropriate responsibly to disclose it.

I don't think that a point based on an incorrect definition is automatically inconsistent or itself incorrect. It might be, of course, or it might just be insufficiently justified. And, to the extent that it is a philosophical point rather than a historical one, the truth or falsity of a philosophical claim doesn't depend on whether someone actually said it, or it is a mistranslation of something someone actually said.

The wonderful Flycut (https://apps.apple.com/us/app/flycut-clipboard-manager/id442...) fixes this on macOS.

Sounds fortunate to me. If it were predictable then it woud be predicted, and then gamed.

What problems do you see with multiple users on macOS? I don't use it intensively, but I've never noticed issues.

That's only obviously irrational if x and y are rational. (But maybe you meant that, given an arbitrary interval a < b, you first shrink it to a rational interval a < x < y < b?)

These days, keychain access is under /System/Library/Core Services/Applications/Keychain Access.app. That's not intuitive, but, once you know it's there, it's not hard to navigate to it. Was it different under older versions?

I'm sure you can trace connections, at least in ideas, but I think Ruby is way more Perl-based than Smalltalk-based.

I'm not sure that this is the meaning of the slogan. The slogan says that a programmer shouldn't try to make one tool to do all things, not, I think, that users shouldn't be given the freedom to adapt their favorite tool to do all the things that they want to do. (Imagine, for example, if one applied this understanding of the slogan to C, and regretted the thousand and thousand thousand different purposes to which users were putting it!)

Protect victims and criminals. Protect victims from the harm done to them by criminals, but also protect criminals from excessive, or, as one might say, cruel and unusual punishment. Just because someone has a criminal record doesn't mean that anything that is done to them is fair game. Society can, and should, decide on an appropriate extent of punishment, and not exceed that.