Douglas Adams, The Salmon of Doubt

Properly designing classes for inheritance takes proactive care and is, in my experience, almost never done unless the author has been forced to by external forces (through APIs or agreements with other developers).

My percieved explanation for this is that most of them can't be bothered to type a message but are still very happy to waste the recipient's time. Yes, I'm not thrilled about it.

OTOH, at least these messages are still more asynchronous and less interrupting than a phone call. But the inability to skim them still bothers me to no end.

Hugo Weaving laughs manically.

It assigns this to the original The Matrix and doesn't mention the sequels. I guess it can't distinguish between them?

Edit: And another one :)

A western hero wants to retire but is forced into a last big battle against all odds by his biggest fan.

(My Name is Nobody)

Aaand another one:

Two men identify classical music pieces by the ads that use them as background music.

(The Intouchables)

And frighteningly good at guessing what I'm throwing at it. Makes a good reverse guessing game: Find something it doesn't get right.

My only success so far:

A cleaner is hopelessly out of his element when his victim wakes up.

(La Femme Nikita)

https://youtu.be/RmIgJ64z6Y4?si=PYtN2xCrDZ79WlY7

I'd wager a big part of it is also the same politics based asymmetry that's visible everywhere; like nobody ever got fired for buying IBM or people only get credit for managing a crisis, not preventing it in the first place.

The steam engine wouldn't have had its impact without the possibility for e.g. precision engineered pistons, and any industrialization would have been severely impaired without the possibilities that the distributed production of exchangeable parts (even as simple as screws, nuts and bolts) to established norms came with.

https://thecodelesscode.com/case/118

I can understand that from an ecosystem perspective (at least to a degree), but based on language merits alone? Hard nope.

Also the swamp camp is really close to some rather deadly creatures if you're not careful in the early game.

"I tried to $ACTION and $FUNCTION throws an error." Followed by awkward silence (or the written equivalent in chat rooms).

Great, why are you telling you me/us about it? What do you expect from me/us? If you're not even willing to produce some text with a question mark at the end, why should anyone bother to invest their time in helping you out?

Even if that weren't the case, lead times for tasks will always increase with more utilization; see e.g. [1]: If you push a system from 80% to 95% utilization, you have to expect a ~4.75x increase in lead time for each task _on average_: (0.95/0.05) / (0.8/0.2)

Note that all except the term containing ρ in the formula are defined by your system/software/clientele, so you can drop them for a purely relative comparison.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingman%27s_formula

Edit: Or, to try to picture the issue more intuitively: If you're on a highway nearing 100% utilization, you're likely standing in a traffic jam. And if that's not (yet) strictly the case, the probabilty of a small hiccup creating one increases exponentially.

And yet, as I said, if the same thinking gets applied to e.g. a store of JSON documents (like ELK), chances are good the thing will ruin the UX for countless people who have to deal with the result. Note that you need exactly no hash maps to store the JSON as it is text.

To expand your analogy: …and yet roads are built so that you can drive your regular car or a box car over them, depending on your use case. You make the choice. A JSON library that doesn't afford such choices (and isn't hyper focused on performance) isn't a good one in my book.

Edit: As a sidenote: Or do you mean a freight train wagon? Then replace "road" with "rails" and "car" with "draisine" :)

> An object is an unordered collection of zero or more name/value pairs, [...]

Further, since RFC 7159:

> JSON parsing libraries have been observed to differ as to whether or not they make the ordering of object members visible to calling software. Implementations whose behavior does not depend on member ordering will be interoperable in the sense that they will not be affected by these differences.

Both are in the current version (RFC 8259).

OTOH, I find the "but the order is not supposed to be guaranteed!" debate REALLY stupid when it comes to software where it's clear that at some point, a human will have to look at the content and correlate it with another system.

There's nothing more evil than re-shuffling JSON just for the fun of it and making everyone who has to look at the result miserable. Yes, I'm talking about you, ELK devs.

Edit: (And/or whoever wrote the underlying Java/Go libs they use for JSON that don't allow developers to patch ordering in. I remember reading GitHub issues about this.)

Letting an LLM loose on a real system without containing it in a sandbox sounds about as predictably disastrous as letting a glorified chess program run all ENCOM operations…

For a more "technical" argument how gameplay mechanics can be a unique way to deliver an emotion to the player (arguably a major part in the role of art): Brothers: A Tale of two Sons. You'd have to make sure that she finishes it, though (estimate: ~3h).

Two trippy games that defy categorization (but won't be good examples for someone not willing to learn mechanics/logic in depth): Thumper and Cocoon.