Why would your whole function be 1 service? That is bad for scalability! Your code is bad and the function will fail 50% of the time half way through anyway. By splitting up the your function in different services, you can scale the first half without having to scale the second half.

Who is possessive in your “chicken’s egg”? Whose egg is it? The animal who laid the egg or the animal who lays in the egg?

I am fairly certain that chicken egg is chicken’s egg after a couple decade of human being lazy. We love to drop stuff in languages.

So chicken’s egg vs chicken’s egg.

That is a linguistical question. What does “chicken” in “chicken egg” mean? What is chicken? What is in the egg or who laid it?

I agree.

I think it is a side effect if it runs on a modern Os. But honestly who cares…

I have made experiences with annoying PHP devs and I don’t hate them.

My critic wasn’t towards rust devs or any devs of any language but towards idolization of a language instead of studying the nature of those languages the flaws and advantages and use the best tool available or attempting to create a better tool.

I see your perspective and I think you kinda miss my perspective which I am to blame for.

I don’t say there weren’t improvements. I am saying that given the uncertainty of “goodness”. Maybe we shouldn’t idolize it. You can appreciate the attempt of creating memory safe code through a programing language without thinking the bare metal code should be written in that language. You can like a typeless easy to write language like Js without thinking desktop app should be written in it. You can like the idea behind functional programming while believing that any application is in the end about side effects and therefore a purely functional application impossible.

You can approach the whole topic as an area of study and possible technological advances instead of a dogma.

There have been “improvements” but fundamentally in my perspective, these “improvements” could be revealed to be a mistake down the line.

Assembly has produced some insane pieces of software that couldn’t be produced like that with anything else.

Maybe types in programming languages are bad because they are kinda misleading as the computer doesn’t even give a shit about what is data and what is code.

Maybe big projects are just a bad idea in software development and any kind of dependency management is the wrong way.

I like modern languages, types and libraries are nice to have, but I am not the student of the future but of the past.

I am proud of you and wish you happiness in your little corner of this world.

It is so weird when people idolize programming languages. They are all flawed and they all encourage some bad design patterns. Just chill and pick yours.

Don’t you see the benefit of AI??? Wow this is such a good and helpful thing. This chatgpt really is a useful product. Good job!

We exploit “cheap” labor “foreign” countries and create a hostile environment online (and possibly remote work job market) for the citizens of that country and look at all the good stuff, we got from it… Look at it… It is going to somewhere right?

Small businesses like Microsoft don’t have the funding to develop such an advanced system.

“Princess Zelda” is a weird way to refer to the original Legend of Zelda NES cartridge.

I really don’t understand this one. with triforce, it wouldn’t be funny but it would make sense but Zelda?

People who joke like that are disgusting.

I don’t care who you are, if your best option is suicide, we failed you and we should be sorry.

SpaceX’s reusable rockets is from SpaceX if I understand it correctly but…

Obviously musk didn’t build the rocket or planned the rocket but that is not the point.

Nasa had plans for reusable rockets but for the longest time, the financial risk of development was higher than the value of reusable rockets. SpaceX didn’t care about the financial risk because they needed thousands of satellites for the most brain dead idea ever, starlink and because Elon is bad with money (Twitter…)

So SpaceX was “successful” because they were crazy enough to run 2 extremely dangerous projects.

That is a strange question. If you use any service to consume media, the service has a huge influence on what information you receive. It is a common complaint over media. Using a service which is under control of someone who doesn’t have your best interest in mind, is giving power over your media consumption to that actor. Which is bad. That is why you should care about who e.h. owns and controls the Washington Post.

Now, about TikTok… Well think about it.

You could easily create that meme for the tolerance paradox. Just saying

Signal is like WhatsApp but you don’t even need to share your phone number for it anymore. You can have an username and share that with people.

Being against, doesn’t make you hateful anyway.

I am “against” religion as I think it does more harm than good but I am pro religious freedom for everyone and a peaceful cooperative global society. So I think that makes me hardly hateful towards religions or the believers. Well tbh I have a hard time accepting religious extremist positions in societies, but everything comes with a price… I take religious freedom for everyone if that means someone thinks a book with instructions on how to abort a baby is against abortion and that it should be law.

Honestly I had too many people insist that Tedx has any value