I'm really not sure what you're trying to argue here. I'm saying its pretty believable that people forget they're carrying guns because people also forget they have a kid with them. And then you counter with an admission that people do forget their kids.
Considering Japanese culture, I'm not surprised. This is what happens when you have super-conservative social values backed up by a strong pressure to conform. Few people are willing to take a risk or convey honest feelings, and both of those things are inherent in a romantic relationship.
This kind of thing is exactly why my old boss went and created his own minimalist framework built around using native code: http://www.domxjs.com. Its explicit purpose is to allow developers to learn and utilize the platform, rather than learning a bunch of libraries.
One of the first things that made me realize this was watching an old interview with Steve Jobs. He'd be asked a question, and would just sit there, totally silent, for maybe 10-15 seconds, and it was obvious that he was pondering the question in order to give a well thought-out answer. Since seeing that, I've made more of an effort to actually ponder questions, rather than trying to give the quickest answer I can, and people seem to response well to doing that.
Jesus, dude, OSS is not some kind of holy grail that renders it immune from all criticism, much less valid criticism.
1. I agree about the "you're free not to use it" line, but I frequently find that documentation can seem comprehensive when you're evaluating something, but as soon as you get deeper into the weeds, that's when the shortcomings reveal themselves. And telling someone to "help them" when they themselves are looking for documentation to get help? That's just laughable. I sure as heck wouldn't want someone who can't get my product to work to be submitting documentation PRs.
2. This is just snide. Refusing to help someone because they're expressing frustration is simply spiteful. You have no more information than the rest of us about what was actually asked, so implying that the author "had it coming" seems uncalled for.
3. Then you're not very familiar with the OSS economy, are you? There are frequently paid support plans available for major OSS projects.
> And telling someone to "help them" when they themselves are looking for documentation to get help? That's just laughable
I'm telling exactly the same thing, if you are not comfortable with reading the source code to understand something, then you shouldn't be starting with a project that doesn't even have a documentation.
> 3. Then you're not very familiar with the OSS economy, are you? There are frequently paid support plans available for major OSS projects.
This is not right, you are talking about mainstream projects, except from people getting paid to contribute open source (like people working on Kubernetes, Firecracker, Gvisor, Bottlerocket, Podman, Red Hat's stuff, Linux Foundation etc), they are doing "free work".
Yes, author is completely free to do whatever criticism they want, but for a project that doesn't even have 2 donators, author has a too offensive language and basically expecting too much.
"People claim Twitter can't possibly moderate content at scale, except that Twitter makes money at that same scale."
I'm sorry, but is that supposed to be a logical argument? Because it doesn't actually make any sense. Twitter is a platform that allows pretty much anyone with an internet connection to post content. There were, on average, 500 million tweets posted per day last year.
So on one side you have the set of potential content creators, churning out half a billion tweets per day, and that number will almost certainly continue to steadily increase. So, as a company with a set amount of income, and who is beholden to its shareholders, what's your plan to moderate 500 million tweets per day while still turning a reasonable profit?
> I'm sorry, but is that supposed to be a logical argument?
Yes, because these social medias can't have it both ways, I already addressed that. If you make money at scale, well you are responsible for moderation at scale, period.
Your argument is just apologizing for Twitter's bad behaviour when it comes to illegal content moderation.
And yet the App Store hasn’t banned Twitter as they did Parler. If the media started reporting about pedophilic content on Twitter and that Twitter’s TOS explicitly allowed pedophiles to discuss their attractions, would the tech gatekeepers continue to allow Twitter? Because this stuff isn’t a secret, but Twitter hasn’t been banned which makes it pretty clear that the Parler and related bans were politically motivated rather than protecting people from harmful content.
But we let Twitter get away with these things because the Blue Checks are mostly leftist or hard-left politically and they’d lose their minds if Twitter were banned from app stores.
That's because twitter actually has content moderation policies in place that they do their best to apply. They're obviously not perfect, but again, the whole reason the app store banned parler was that they had no workable moderation plan in place. Twitter does.
Parler didn't get TOS'd because they had things fall through their moderation process; they got TOS'd because they did not have a workable moderation process in place, period. Twitter obviously does make mistakes - both AIs and humans are fallible - but they have about as good a moderation process in place as it's possible to have with the amount of message traffic they process.
Also, I'd like to point out that the only evidence WE'VE seen of this so far are a few claims made in a lawsuit.
There's more than one explanation as to why "mainstream media" might not run a story. The NY Post isn't exactly known as a bastion of credible journalism. That's why they ran the Hunter Biden laptop story when everyone else passed because they couldn't verify it.
I know that it's the Post. My point is that if the Post was able to cover it, why couldn't a bigger outlet such as NYT or the BBC spare the resources to cover it too.
Not to mention, the Hunter Biden story was mostly speculative without proof. This one is a federal case with all details out in the open.
I agree with the overall sentiment of your post, but using the Hunter Biden laptop story as an example is an unfortunate choice. There's a popular view that politics had a lot to do with who picked up the story and who didn't, as opposed to just the strength of the case itself. I would recommend picking a less controversial example that highlights the shortcomings of NY Post's journalism, such as their reporting on the Boston Bombers [1].
Or, it could be a garbage story manufactured by liars, implying that of all the outlets not running it, there's a chance they had looked into it and decided it was a garbage story manufactured by liars.
Sometimes a thing that fails, fails because it's bad or disingenuous or both. It's possible this is a garbage suit that won't go anywhere because it's a garbage suit.
See, and this is where I (and I'm guessing you) might beg to differ. I'm a web developer, so the vast majority of my time is spent working in JavaScript. Our team has been working in ES6 for the past ~2 years. Our lead developer just LOVES him some ES6 - destructuring, aliasing, lambdas, you name it, and he's all-in.
Me, though? Well, let's just put it like this: when we find some framework-level bug that's written in "clever" ES6 syntax, our first step in debugging is almost ALWAYS to rewrite the given function traditionally, without any of the ES6 shorthand. And the reason we do that is because reading and debugging a whole stack of anonymous lambda calls is a PAIN IN THE ASS. Or figuring out where a certain variable is coming from when someone uses overly-complex destructuring syntax to magically pull a value from deep within a nested object.
I mean, don't get me wrong, I do like and use almost all of the modern ES6 niceties, but I also feel like it's much more difficult to parse and understand code compared to what we were all writing a few years back. People will, I'm sure, be arguing about what constitutes "good code" for decades to come, but to me, when working in an evolving codebase, especially with other people, plain ol' human readability is paramount. If people can't figure out what your code is doing without throwing in a breakpoint and stepping through line-by-line, you've failed at writing good code. And this will be my opinion right up until the day humans stop writing code by hand.
If that's the case, they need to own fewer guns. I cannot think of many things more important to keep track of at all times than where one's guns are.