Because e.g. DROP also effectively deletes the rows but takes way way less work.

If you're into long shot betting AND your savings aren't running out while waiting to land a new job, that might be a good strategy

It's a job interview, you're not supposed to do that, and they don't appreciate it when you do. Try something like:

  - Where do you see yourself in 5 years?
  - Working at a much better company than 
    this shithole

Nope, we could just do 1/10th of the things "the government does".

Not all them are needed, and a lot of them are actively harmful.

And how's that a problem of UEFA?

For the other, that's up for debate. They might just be replaced by misery on the current trajectory too.

Keyword: effective. Hardware is also built on top of components with error tolerances. What do you think ECC memory is for? Or why chips have "yields" and parts that were "turned off" while shipping? Or how thermal throttling happens? Or CPU clocks, which have jitter to be corrected, and tons of other examples, all the way to transistors and capacitors.

And let's not even get into HDs and SSDs.

How come? Their human code didn't have any of either all those decades?

Doesn't matter for the point of the argument, he was elected on that promise, and others, that he eventually broke.

Why do you need to "level up"? To have it shit out slop faster?

Just use it rationally for what you need to do.

Nah, it hurts their public image and thus hardliners. Like similar actions against South Africa did.

And yet it is, and most things still function. Now what?

>You trust and rely on thousands of people and services every day

And I, and everybody else, distrusts and tries not to rely on thousands of people and services every day too.

Do you lock your car? Or your door? Do you use your username as password trusting nobody would stoop so low as to break it? Do you trust the goverment to put your tax money to good use? Do you trust emails with great offers from websites you didn't subscribe to? Do you trust companies not to sell your personal data?

>As others have said, if you're this skeptical I don't see why you would have been using them before this retention increase.

Because they have a technically more capable offering. For absolutely no other reason.

It's not about why this or that person would want to install the MS Office on their Mac (millions do after all). So the pointed flew above their head.

It's about the point that many people having to use Google Docs are doing so because corporate wants them to. (In fact most people using MS Office do it because it's a work requirement too).

Sure it does, when all browsers have more or less the same, and the context makes clear we're not talking about the mere programmatic consumption of HTTP (like through some REST api).

"But it's a protocol and not a client" is pedantically irrelevant, given that the clients for that protocol all follow the same conventions. The parent already said they meant the UX of it "which is arguably similar between implementations".

Besides, protocols impose some concepts and models of interaction and consumption, which informs any UX created on top of them. So it's not like that client sameness is merely accidental and unrelated to the protocol either.

Anarchy as in political/social chaos, where "everything goes" Mad Max style, and anarchy as in a volunteer governance system of direct democracy with no coercive authority.

The way you wrote it "which is worse than all but the very worst governments, and from which IMO some form of government will emerge anyway.", implied to me the former.

If you meant the latter, I'd call it absolute much better than the "very worst governments" and likely better than even the best traditional governments. Whether it can be long term stable is debatable, but a different claim. In any case, what we have is neither that well working, nor that stable.

Sure, so? We did that quite a few times in the past, that's how we dont' still have Pharaohs.

>If you want to tear up the constitution and implement a new system of governance with "less government" then you're effectively advocating for a revolution. Just be honest and don't try to sell this as an incremental policy change.

Who said it has to be an incremental policy change? The claim I responded to was:

"That's the constitutional bedrock of our societies. That doesn't mean it's always true but if you denounce that as a legitimate and achievable goal then you don't have a society anymore."

You still get one. It's just not something you get while conveniently sitting on your ass and voting once every few years.