Bill Joy, the original author of vi, saw the vi commands as a problem, not a solution [1]:

    The fundamental problem with vi is that it doesn't have a mouse and therefore you've got all these commands. In some sense, its backwards from the kind of thing you'd get from a mouse-oriented thing.

But I have used mouse warping in other environments and I’ve never been caused disoriented. It never occurred to me that such a problem is possible. In general, it seems like this problem can be avoided by 1) moving the mouse only to changed states of the screen, 2) only if they’re small enough to be easily observable, and 3) only for repetitive tasks.

“Don’t mess” is a very broad range that includes things like removing the mouse cursor at nine PM. Of course, no one should do that.

But a narrower conclusion “let the mouse warp at certain predictable cases” doesn’t contradict your thesis.

But why shouldn’t the global UI itself make use of mouse warping?

This doesn’t account for cases where the system is semi-automatic, such as a tiling window manager (you don’t set all the dimensions manually). If the automatic part is to stay at all, it should make certain assumptions for the user.

I truly miss this level of detail in the outside world. It feels as if you’re resizing a window but the mouse pointer doesn’t move.

The Lightroom example is nowhere close to that. Looks like a thoughtless optimization.

I do agree that a private estate cannot exist in a society without government. But it is private estate in the sense that the members recognize it as such, and that it can exist in this very narrow context.

    Q: Why is the lack of government in Galt’s Gulch (in Atlas Shrugged) any different from anarchy, which you object to?

    A: Galt’s Gulch is not a society; it’s a private estate. It’s owned by one man who carefully selected the people admitted. Even then, they had a judge as an arbitrator, if anything came up; only nothing came up among them, because they shared the same philosophy. . . . But project a society of millions, in which there is every kind of viewpoint, every kind of brain, every kind of morality—and no government. . . . No one can guard rights, except a government under objective laws. . . . Rational men are not afraid of government. In a proper society, a rational man doesn’t have to know the government exists, because the laws are clear and he never breaks them. [FHF 72]

You would be correct if that were the whole truth about Atlas Shrugged: defending protagonists on emotional grounds.

But it’s not the whole truth. The very monologue that you dismiss is the tool that provides the emotion with the principle. You know the characters’ reasons for holding their emotions.

Ayn Rand never said that one shouldn’t feel or express one’s emotions. On the contrary, “. . . emotions are not his enemies, they are his means of enjoying life” [1].

In fact, every emotional appeal used in the novel is supported by argument, sooner or later. You cannot say, for example, that the dismissal of James Taggart or Robert Stadler is purely emotional.

> The jarring transition reveals how the story was really just an afterthought

Your claim would be valid if the jarring transition were not Galt’s speech but some other nonfiction. The case is the opposite: the story and speech are very much integral.

The pause of events as such is a neutral tool, with precedents (The Battle of Waterloo in Les Miserables).

[1]: https://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/emotions.html

Further, the principle doesn’t deny retaliating in advance when violence can be objectively anticipated.

s/denier/opponent/

s/late-stage capitalism/socialist propaganda/

If you're asking genuinely:

1. It's wrong to assume beforehand that the other party is irrational.

2. To refute the other side, you have to engage with their strongest argument.

This is an intellectual issue, and no intellectual issue could be resolved by dismissal.