Given that, do you really think goal #1 non-Web APIs really added much additional delay on top of the delay necessitated by goal #2 anyway?

This paragraph has both:

> The symptom is familiar: a stream that occasionally "locks up" briefly before catching up, jitter in audio or video, or a latency spike that appears to come from nowhere, a "hang" in the application when it gets blocked waiting for a packet. It comes from a single packet forcing the entire pipeline to pause. The underlying network recovered quickly; TCP's ordering guarantee is what made it visible.

So does this!

> WireGuard's protocol is a fundamentally different design point. It's stateless — there's no connection to establish upfront, no session to track, and no certificate authority in the picture. Two keys, a compact handshake, and you're encrypting. And unlike TLS, WireGuard's cryptographic choices are fixed: Noise_IKpsk2 for key exchange, ChaCha20-Poly1305 for authenticated encryption. There's nothing to misconfigure.

I think it’s specifically the resemblance to the clickbaity writing style that Twitter threads and LinkedIn and Facebook influencer posts are written in, presumably optimized for engagement/social media virality. I’m not totally sure what I want instead, I’m pretty sure I’ve seen the same tactics used in writing I admired, but probably much more sparingly?

What is it that makes tptacek’s writing or Cloudflare’s blog etc so much more readable by comparison? Is it just variety? Maybe these tactics should be reserved for intro paragraphs (of the article but also of individual sections/chapters might be fine too) to motivate you to read on, whereas the meat of the article (or section) should have more substance and less clickbaiting hooks?

This thread also has a lot of anecdotal examples of failure modes of 'diverse slate' rules, though, such as people who have already decided who to hire still interviewing women candidates just to appease the rule, thus wasting everyone's time.

It has had the connotation of "mainline", a synonym for "trunk", in version control since before Git existed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branching_(version_control)

Presumably this was originally due to the connotation of the railroad mainline: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_line_(railway)

Which is exactly the point—the UI is written in HTML/CSS, not the native platform language, and the high-performance modules are written in C++ and Rust, also not the native platform language.

This just isn't true. Look into how Dan Harmon gave a genuine apology and accounting for his wrongdoing and was forgiven. Can you point to Sabatini doing anything that even arguably rises to that level of contrition?

• a quick search for "refuting bell's theorem" will turn up attempts in 2000, 2007, 2011, 2012, 2017, etc, so let's take this with a huge grain of salt

• Europhysics Letters is a reasonably old journal (1986) but an impact factor of ~2 is pretty low; I wouldn't consider this a major journal

• As the Reddit discussion notes: "Just because you call your model locally realistic doesn't mean it's actually locally realistic. Calling it "contextual" doesn't change that. ... That part where the "context" of photon 1 changes the polarization of photon 2? That's not local.": https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/nig8d5/bells_theor...

A homeless woman today in any major American city (which generally require hospitals to provide emergency care even to people without health insurance) is safer giving birth than a queen a few centuries ago. A homeless person today in any major American city is safer from cholera, tuberculosis, any antibiotic-treatable disease than a king a few centuries ago.

Society and technology have made us much better off overall, it's not close. The fact that we still have major problems today does not contradict the fact that we have also solved some major problems, too, thanks to science and technology.

Autonomy vs social control is a modern trend? That's not what totalitarianism was?

What change of governance? From who to who? (Or what to what?)

Shamelessness was previously only found in rulers and jesters? There weren't ordinary people who were assholes, and shameless about it?

Canada and Nordic countries rank highly in every major freedom index, yet these countries are all known for relatively high tax obligations and comprehensive environmental and climate regulation. No one serious believes all externally-imposed commitments are avoidable or oppressive.

I clearly completely failed to communicate what I meant about "diagramming" a programming language, as evidenced by all the people pointing out that syntax tree diagrams work fine on natural languages, and indeed were originally created for natural languages, which is totally missing the point.

What I meant was that the semantics of programming languages are so limited and constrained that they could easily be translated into an "executable diagram", such as a control-flow graph for imperative code, or a dataflow graph for functional code. The syntax of natural languages is indeed more-or-less similarly constrained as programming languages, but the semantics of natural languages seems completely nebulous and ill-defined to me.

To use the board game analogy from earlier, you could conceivably learn to play chess entirely in terms of chess notation ("1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6"), without ever learning about the 8x8 chessboard or the 16 pieces. Chess notation shares no syntactic structure whatsoever with the "syntax"/diagram drawing rules of a chessboard and pieces, yet their semantics are exactly equivalent.

In the same way, the "syntax"/diagram drawing rules of control-flow graphs has no syntactic structure in common with imperative code, yet exactly equivalent semantics. Could you imagine a diagram system that has no syntactic structure in common with natural language, yet completely captures the semantics?

I cannot begin to imagine that. The semantics of natural language defy description.