Knowledge loss is precisely my point: there is very little a-priori knowledge needed to solve this, the guy who found the bug proves that.

I've done this kind of stuff many times, and something like a json array taking minutes to parse would likely be very very obvious when looking at a trace.

Guess what, all Chinese EVs are made by communists, maybe there's something to it after all!

> gives link to "limited evidence of benefits"

I'm not looking for absence of evidence, as absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. The original post claims tradeoffs, where are they? What are we trading? Even the most dynamic-language friendly results in your linked post either claim: "look at what we did without types!" or "even though there's no types in ruby, devs think about them all the time", which I mean, come on.

The only real criticism or tradeoffs on types mentioned is a person getting stuck on a single static type check compilation error, but I can easily counter that with "undefined is not a property of null".

From the link:

> if the strongest statement you can make for your position is that there's no empirical evidence against the position, that's not much of a position.

This is how hypotheses work. Maybe the problem is that we have a hard time proving anything about programming languages?

Could you point to any literature/freely available resource that comes close to the SOTA for these kinds of operations? I would be greatly helped.

The thing with computational geometry is, that its usually someone else's geometry, i.e you have no control over its quality or intention. In other words, whether two points or planes or lines actually align or align within 1e-4 is no longer really mathematically interesting because its all about the intention of the user: does the user think these planes overlap?.

This is why most geometry kernels (see open cascade) sport things like "fuzzy boolean operations" [0]) that lean into epsilons. These epsilons mask the error-prone supply chain of these meshes that arrive in your program by allowing some tolerance.

Finally, the remark "There are many ways of solving this problem" is also overly reductive, everyone reading here should really understand that this is a topic that is being actively researched right now in 2026, hence there are currently no blessed solutions to this problem, otherwise this research would not be needed. Even more so, to some extent this problem is fundamentally unsolvable depending on what you mean by "solvable", because your input is inexact not all geometrical operations are topologically valid, hence an "exact" or let alone "correct along some dimension" result cannot be achieved for all (combination of) inputs.

[0] https://dev.opencascade.org/content/fuzzy-boolean-operations

Could you elaborate?

To further argue your original point: chrome & electron are the only reason desktop is still around, both Microsoft and Apple tried their very hardest to build a walled garden of GUI frameworks, rejecting the very idea of compatibility, good design, and ease of use, until they were surpassed by the web, and particularly Google, showing that delivering functioning applications to a computer does not require gigantic widget libraries, outdated looks or complicated downloads & install processes, but is in fact nothing more than a bit of standardization and a couple MBs of text.

All this electron & web hate is so incredibly misplaced I don't even know where to begin. Have you tried making a cross platform mac/win native app? I have, its like being catapulted into the stone age, but you're asked to build a skyscraper.

My question is mostly rhetorical: it is obvious that government & safety institutions are themselves fanning the flames of this ridiculous movement away from privacy and towards a surveillance state of over-protectionism. The world has not significantly changed in 50 years in terms of terrorist threats, (except for, ironically, threats to your identity online), yet suddenly now that we can track people online, we must to combat this non-changing threat factor? It's all security theater.

All intelligence agencies benefit from more data, and will happily use lack of data as a scapegoat for their own incompetence. They instill fear to justify their existence, unlawful behavior, and lack of results.

I'm sorry what?

This is not even close to consensus, as you present it.

Also, a thought exercise, just for you:

1. Should stabbing people be illegal? 2. Should we make it impossible to stab people?

Think about those things, and how they relate to eachother. What would the consequences be of #2?

The person you are replying to is consciously trying to make the world a better place, and probably succeeding in a small way. Are they perfect? No. But they are literally sacrificing something for the good of someone (or something) else. This is the definition of altruism.

For some reason, you felt the need to criticize them for not being more altruistic?

Finally, if you really want to live cruelty free and 100% sustainably, the only option is to throw yourself off of a bridge because any time you interact with modern society you are producing CO2 indirectly and potentially harming animals, no matter how careful you are.

How do you think this came to be?

About your binary tree comment: yes this is absolutely valid, but consider then that binary trees also are a bad fit for distributed computing, where data is often partitioned at the top level (making it no longer a binary tree but a set of binary trees) and cross-node joins are expensive.

This is all speculation, but intuitively your criticism makes sense.

Also, mapping 147k cities to countries should not take 16 workers and 1TB of memory, I think the example in the article is not a realistic workload.

This is indeed a nonsensical timeframe.

> What I am saying is that just throwing out phrases that something is "simple" or "basic" needs proof, but at the time of writing I don't see examples.

Fair point.