(There are well-known social causes for this which are direct consequences of racism, like access to quality health care, housing, education, credit, etc.)

COVID-19 deaths aren't taking nearly that many years. According to [2] (about 1.5 weeks old), 1 in 1850 (or around 0.05% of) black Americans have died from COVID-19. Even if this continues for the rest of the year, it still can't hold a candle to plain old racism.

[1]: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2017/015.pdf [2]: https://www.apmresearchlab.org/covid/deaths-by-race

Do you want to ignore the (non-lethal) evils of prejudice, and just play a numbers game with fatalities? From some back-of-the-envelope math, the average POC in America will still lose more years of their life from simply living in a racist society than from COVID-19.

Life isn't a pissing contest of "my problem is bigger than your problem".

The number 6 exemplifies the problem. Touch-typing classes teach that it's pressed by the right hand, but the number row has drifted so far left that it's actually closer to the left hand. Sure enough, (non-ortho) split keyboards can't agree which side of the split to put it on. Sometimes even different models from the same company disagree.

Staggered keys is even crazier, to me, than QWERTY. There's no spending 2 weeks relearning where every letter is. There's no messing up spatial mnemonics like Z/X/C/V. It just instantly fixes your fingers from being slightly out of alignment.

And the craziest is when touchscreens do it. Keys were only staggered in that funny way to make room for the keylevers. Computer keyboards never had keylevers, but touchscreens really never had keylevers!

Just because Monitor (dozens of offices, thousands of employees) worked for Gaddafi doesn't mean "John & Jane's IT Setup Helpers" around the corner must also be an inherently immoral institution.

Right, but that's not even the purpose of speech. Abstraction is a feature, not a flaw.

Even with electronic systems where perfect and complete transfer is possible, we prefer simplified serialization of messages.

> So whatever the feeling of "I'm being direct" or "I'm being clear" is, it is almost certainly itself faulty. We're not built for that and language isn't either.

I half-disagree with you here. Given that language is so ambiguous, it's admirable to try to reduce unnecessary ambiguity, when your goal is to communicate a specific message.

You may need only a day or two to orient yourself to the source code, but that’s on top of months or years of experience with X11R6 and ICCCMv2 and EWMH and such. How much debugging did you first need to do to discover your current issue was even in dwm?

EDIT: I especially love the phrasing in Wikipedia's ICCCM article: dwm "can be configured for compliance". If 'configuration' can include editing source code, I'm sure that's true!

That is a strange division of labor. I thought transparency and composition were aspects of window management. What else would they be?

And assuming the wings haven’t lost their lift due to ice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Eagle_Flight_4184

Planes can glide, but there’s still lots of ways to drive one straight into the ground.

You can't make a Ruby program that uses fixnums-only. You also can't make a Crystal program that's dynamic like Ruby. Interestingly, though, when the Crystal implementation is modified to use bignums, the Ruby implementation is over twice as fast while still being dynamic.

What I get from this is that Crystal's static compiler is slower than Ruby's dynamically dispatched interpreter, and Crystal's bignums are so slow you'll need to think hard about whether you want a 50x speed boost or correct arithmetic in all cases.

I think Crystal is a good concept, but it's only version 0.34.0. Every implementation is bad at version <<1.0. Ruby <<1.0 didn't have good performance, either. I'm sure Crystal will be great by the time it gets to 2.6.5, too.

As a user, it's extremely relevant to me. I paid for your product/service because of what it claimed to do. Bugs are ways in which it doesn't do that. (It doesn't matter to me if some other hypothetical features don't exist yet, because I was happy to pay for the product/service knowing it didn't have those features.) As far as I'm concerned, a bug is your company not holding up your end of the bargain, even though I've held up my end by paying for it. That's not a good look.

Another way to look at it is that a bug is downtime for a feature. Elsewhere, you say (system) downtime should be #1, "top priority of everyone" until it's fixed. But what good is the system being 'up' if it's still broken in the way that I need? When I lose power at home, it's no consolation to hear "The power grid as a whole is still up -- it's just your neighborhood that's not working", nor would I consider this reasonable justification for de-prioritizing fixing it.

Maybe your company is at the stage where attracting new users with features is more important than keeping existing customers with quality. But they say it's always easier to keep customers than it is to acquire new ones, and I've blackballed several companies because they no longer place the priority on quality that they once did. You should be aware of what you're giving up by de-prioritizing 'bugs', or pretending they don't exist. I see comments here on HN every day complaining about specific companies whose software quality suffers. It takes years to dig yourself out of that hole.

And I know dozens of people who got burned by being talked into working for "exposure".

Here, I uploaded that image from the other day that crashes some phones. I gzipped it so it wouldn't generate a preview, and attached it to a bug. When you click the "github.com" link, it downloads the file, and (at least with my web browser) uncompresses it and opens it with your default application. It's bit-for-bit the same as what I uploaded.

https://github.com/kengruven/strukt-bugs/issues/40

I don't know if this is exploitable. I haven't spent any time trying to break GitHub. This is just something I happened to notice once.

He was hardly an environmentalist, either. That's how important this was 50 years ago.

And yet, at least it's possible to have more than one Macintosh application use the same data. Half the world has migrated to web apps, which are far worse. As a user, it's virtually impossible to connect two web apps at all, or access your data in any way except what the designers decided you should be able to do. Data doesn't get any more "specific to an application" than with web apps.