Actually, I don't even think it's possible to run HiDPI mode at the native resolution scale from within the macOS settings app, you'd need something like `Better Display` to turn it on explicitly.

Spotify rolling this out without an announcement intentionally would be an incredible blunder. I'd cancel my membership immediately and I don't think I'd be alone in that decision.

So you're saying it's highly likely then?

They are using very general language and they aren’t disagreeing with my characterization, so I think I’m describing their position accurately.

> We no longer had to deploy 140+ services for a change to one of the shared libraries.

Taken in isolation, that is a strong indicator that they were indeed running a distributed monolith.

However, the blog post earlier on said that different microservices were using different versions of the library. If that was actually true, then they would never have to deploy all 140+ of their services in response to a single change in their shared library.

So now if I choose to play a video game, that means my personal fulfillment is being controlled by a corporation? You seem to be conflating one's agency to choose versus a corporation having utter control over one's choices. Again, I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but you mentioned being addicted to video games and I think that is affecting your objectivity. As someone who plays video games only a few hours a week, your claim sounds ridiculous.

> I typed out my ideas as they came to me, so I may have missed the mark. The core idea I want to portray is that you can choose not to play the game of for profit corporations. You can walk away.

Sure, no argument there - but that's not what you said originally.

Choosing to play a video game made by a corporation doesn't mean the corporation is controlling one's fulfillment, nor does it mean one is not getting fulfillment or satifsfaction from it (your words).

I’m sorry that you were addicted to playing video games (truly) but I think your past experience is preventing you from thinking rationally about this.

People can find fulfillment from many different things, including the ones that you personally don’t find fulfilling. One's fulfillment is also irrelevant with respect to whether the product they are consuming was designed by a corporation to extract maximum profits (though I sympathize with your anti-corporate stance, despite the fact I find this point of yours to be irrational).

You admitted your view was subjective, yet you are prescribing it as a general view that applies to everyone which is both elitist and dissonant.

A bit too condescending if you ask me. People are free to choose to spend time on things they find entertaining and that has no bearing on whether you find it "junk food" or whether the company producing the entertainment is trying to squeeze every penny they can out of it.

> But yeah... CoC applies to him too. So you've got a good point

Since you’ve just proven yourself to not be arguing in good faith, this will be my last response to you.

This appears to be a strawman. You already admitted he violated the CoC - so he is in the wrong here.

I'm not sure what else there is to disagree with - that's been my assertion from the beginning.

If he wants to write childish stuff on his own website that is not covered by the CoC, that's his choice. I'm also free to express my opinion on that, but I never implied that he shouldn't be able to write whatever he wanted on his own personal blog.

Yeah, it’s hilarious! Calling someone a monkey is such a clever and thought provoking insult!

> I don't know why we need to talk endlessly about it

If you are confused by this, why are you continuing to respond?

> When I said I decline to share my lines and boundaries here, I meant just that. I didn't mean that I need a lecture on CoC from you. I know what CoCs are and why they exist.

I really don’t think you know why CoC’s exist, because you are chastising people when they point out a legitimate violation (e.g. being the "morality police").

> But yeah... CoC applies to him too. So you've got a good point

Thanks for finally admitting this, I guess? Not sure why you needed to add all the extra argumentation about it, but at least you got there eventually.

> If this is such an important topic for you, please do report the violation to them

No thank you. I’m not actually offended by what he said, I just find it weird when people rush to his defense on this.

One of the unfortunate side effects of the internet is that it really brings out the asshole in a lot of people.

That's funny, because if that is true he violated his own code of conduct: https://ziglang.org/code-of-conduct/#safe-constructive-only

> I do but I decline to share it here

The point is that everyone has different lines for what they consider to be "acceptable" or not. That is exactly the reason why codes of conduct exist - it's an attempt to find a common denomiator so that it can help foster a community where people can feel included without feeling like they are being attacked or insulted.

Surely you have your own line on what is or is not acceptable discourse. What is it?

And to many others, the difference is that one is informative, the other is likely to turn them off of the author and project forever.

I noticed that you never answered my question. If this is acceptable to you, where do you draw the line? If you can answer that question, maybe you'll be able to see the flaw in your argument.