- In the case of search or sort algorithms, where the primary concern is the speed of computation, undesirable states would be performing unnecessary or duplicate computations.

- In the case of encryption algorithms, undesirable states would be those that leak encrypted data.

- In the case of an order shipping and fulfillment system, an undesirable state would be marking an order as fulfilled when not all of the items have been delivered.

The more care that is taken to prevent undesirable states, the more the program takes on an algorithmic style. And the only way you can be sure that those undesirable states are impossible is to think in terms of proofs and invariants.

And yet here you are, still talking. So long as we are continuing this conversation, do you have any thoughts on how the executive branch should effectively enforce immigration law, which it has an obligation to do, according to the constitution?

I quite obviously reject your framing, and believe that there is a real discussion about how to properly adhere to the constitution in the face of conflicting considerations. But you do you.

Cool.

> But how much industrial capacity do you want to take up making clothing?

I actually want the market to decide that. But that is fundamentally what we do not have. It has been more or less the result of conscious trade policy (by all governments involved) to incentivize production in other countries.

We don't make our own clothes because:

1. The regulatory burden on manufacturing is much higher here than foreign countries

2. Those foreign countries have a deliberate policy of maintaining a trade surplus in order to improve their own industrial capacity at the expense of our own

I would absolutely expect that even in a more level trade environment there would still be some foreign manufacturing of clothes. But what we are seeing is not the happy accident of the free market, but the result of very deliberate government policy.

Adequate clothing is actually a very important in war. Frostbite, sunburn, heat exhaustion, cuts and scrapes (which can lead to infection), trench foot, etc. are all conditions that can be mitigated through clothing.

One major reason why it is cheaper to make these clothes overseas is because we have such a stringent regulatory regime for worker and environmental protections, and using foreign manufacturers is essentially a loophole through those regulations. Whether those regulations are useful or not is entirely beside the point: if they are good, then moving manufacturing over to lower regulation countries is bad and we should impose tariffs on all of those goods. If those regulations are bad, then we should just repeal them and let domestic manufacturers compete on an even playing field.

Feel free to come up with a different set of principles, but don't call it FOSS.

What frustrates me about this current FOSS discourse is that the are a bunch of people who want to change FOSS principles without (seemingly) understanding what those original principles are or why they were chosen. These critics live in a world in which FOSS has been uproariously successful but don't appear to appreciate what was necessary for it to be successful in the first place.

Look, if you didn't find it funny, you're right. But those people who found it funny were also right. Humor is a matter of taste.

> It's just being a dick in a way that it's popular to be a dick, because you can't be arsed to think for yourself about your own actions.

Maybe, or maybe people think it's funny and based on relevant criticism of the band's musical range and the music industry overall.

> Criticism, in the right context, is kind--it's not kindness to let problems stagnate when they can be fixed.

There's no use in this conversation if you are just going to equivocate between "kind" and "good". Kindness, as I understand it, usually implies some sort of consideration for the feelings of other people, which is manifestly not always the right thing.

And even when the harshness doesn't come from the best place, we still need it to some extent or we become fragile and blind to our own flaws.