I can almost guarantee you that a synchronous API would yield a much more complicated design just because many operations can not be expected to reliably work within a few milliseconds.

You want to rename something across multiple files? Well now you add file system overhead and blow straight past reliable frame timings. Good luck waiting for that operation to finish. Of course you could make the API beginRename, and queryRename, or whatever you fancy to see if the operation was successful, but now you're back to what you wanted to avoid: an asynchronous API. Do mind that the example is actually one of the better cases, as many things you might want to do with a codebase are actually more expensive. You will feel the hiccups from waiting in the UI thread and you will loathe the program for it.

Historically graphics programming has been more concerned with looking good rather than being accurate, and behavior is likely different on each GPU. It's a "hop into the water and learn to swim" kind of thing as far as I'm concerned. You will find errors for things you'll never have thought about and there is hardly any way to brace for it except trying on the go.

You can share with header files and respective (shared) object files regardless of the build system you're using. Likewise you could just share the source. None of this needs a build system.

I believe that one does not need to be overly concerned here. As with most things you will never satisfy zealots so it is sufficient to reconsider every once in a while when the status quo changed enough to warrant the effort (i.e. the actual arguments change).

It is always a choice to participate in these "culture wars" or whatever you want to call this. If you can stick to a decision you can limit the impact quite a bit, I've come to realize.

A (raising an issue): This hole in the wall sucks, I can't stand it. At least if we were in a tent we could sew it shut.

B (planter of herrings): So you'd rather live in a tent than in a house? Don't you know that tents are generally worse than houses?

C (the innocent bystander lead astray): I also much prefer houses. You hear so many bad things about them, but in the end nothing is better. No caves, no huts, and certainly no tents. I'd pick a house any day of the week.

Did you notice that we are no longer talking about the hole in the wall? The hole could be required for mold-prevention, it could just be an oversight that is actually fixable, it might be a trade-off. But since we are no longer talking about the hole we will never know.

> ... but ”With a dictator you have full responsibility concentrated in a single person” is simply not true. Dictorships are master minds of shifting blame.

This is you talking about the hole in the wall. I am also not convinced by the original argument, but I do believe that there is some substance to be explored.

> ... I’m obviously biased as a European but I’d pick the eu any day.

This is you falling for the red herring. We don't know if the original poster lives in the EU. We don't know if they prefer it to a dictatorship, but it also does not matter. The original qualms are that there is seemingly no single point you can go to to stop the endeavor once and for all, which in this context is encryption backdoors within the EU. We could be talking about how the same mechanics that make this so frustrating are useful elsewhere; find out or explain why the things are the way they are. We could be uncovering a valid flaw in the system just waiting to be fixed; conclude that things don't have to be this way. Instead, we ask ourselves if we like living in the EU better than in other places. We've lost the plot, so to speak: There is no more insight to be had.

This is what makes a red herring so obnoxious to deal with. It is an easy trap to lay if you don't want to think about something or hinder someone, but takes so much effort to recover from. In the tent-example it is easy to see that we completely derailed and stopped talking about what matters. Unfortunately, reality is much more subtle and not everyone has the same goals in mind. At least on HN I'd like to try and keep discovery in focus and once we reach the stage where it's only about opinions there is nothing more to discover.

There is no further comparison made between these governmental forms and how they affect their subjects.

Why would you create such a blatant red herring?

What the headline is missing is that, according to the article, Meta is paying influencers to advertise for existing parental controls. If the issue is not that there are no controls, but that parents don't use them because they don't know about it, then I see hardly any evidence to support such a pretentious title.

Parents are supposed to care about what their kids do. The government can only mildly reduce this burden. To be honest, I think that there might not be enough information on how to effectively parent on the internet and this seems like a low hanging fruit to try. In the end a ban might be the best option, but exhausting other options first seems worth a shot.

One of the main arguments pro-Meta is that they at least try, even though a strong argument can be made that they don't try hard enough. I find it difficult to believe that preventing children from interacting online via social networks is achievable. As long as adults demonstrate the availability of these things kids might want to imitate/have the same interactions. I'm glad I don't have any stakes in this topic at the moment - foreseeing evasive behavior from either side is going to be a nightmare.

That the world runs on Kubernetes is no qualitative statement about the correctness of its Raft implementation. You can say that it's clearly good enough to not matter most of the time, but that is a different statement. No matter who you look at, they're just cooking with gas like you do, and they can make mistakes in just the same way.

Now; I'm only attacking your argument. I do neither know nor particularly care about the correctness of that implementation itself. There's been better refutations of the claim you replied to in other answers anyway.

Whatever this approaches, it is not a state of software engineering I find desirable.

P.S.: No true Scotsman spotted

It is known that warnings and pop-ups that show up almost all the time yield diminishing returns. I think it was named "normalization of deviation" by some folks in a blog a while ago, and I believe that name fits. If you get warned about missing https all the time, or that something might be dangerous (even though it does precisely what you want it to do), it will loose its effect by the time you actually need it.

You can argue this is malicious compliance, but if you want it to go away it would probably be easier to go for banning tracking and personalized ads altogether. Eliminate the reason for this behavior, so to speak.

  git config core.editor "vim"

I might be misinformed, but I believe that American citizens have a way of forcing specific regulation instead of only forcing it to be considered. That would be something we don't have in the EU. So in the end it might just even out in that regard.

Maybe this sentiment stems from being software engineers, but at least for hardware it becomes abundantly clear that "good enough" is a desirable state unless you want to spend years in development. The only direct comparison I can find in software is computer graphics, where the endeavor often halts as soon as the average person can't perceive a difference anymore.

No one bothered to make any of the other options easier, only the previously simplest option was barred behind trying everything else. This is what over-bureaucratization looks like.

To use a different example: No one wants to switch to public transport (which is already crowded anyway)? No problem, just ban driving unless you can prove that it's orders of magnitude faster and it's not feasible to move your residence. No further preparation is done; no thought goes beyond the horizon. "Eat this rule and deal with it, you don't have to deal with the paperwork if you're willing to spend 2 hours more on commuting". That's the line of thought here. There are no plans to make it actually viable to use the train, the other options are just barred behind this veil of plausible optionality. You can do it, of course. The issue arises from doing this with literally anything you tackle.

You essentially only add rules and special cases without ever consolidating them or even considering possible impact on adjacent topics. Everything grinds to a halt by doing this and nothing ever gets simplified. It is a huge issue on a landscape that favored small businesses (that can't afford divisions dealing with this) when the way the law is written suddenly requires structures only big companies or consultancies can provide. It entombs the market structure and drowns any competition in regulatory capture. We haven't even seen what happens once the markets are dominated by oligopolies and monopolies. By that time the only way to deal with the fall out will be even more rules, as the competitive landscape will already be dead.

I'm not against the goal of this regulation, but the recent way the rules have been made favor a market structure I consider incompatible with the goals of the EU.

  2>&1 >/dev/null cat file