I agree, but if you look at the specific email linked, it very clearly crosses the line into direct abuse, whereas most of Linus’s rants do exist in a slightly greyer area (even if they’d be grounds for a discussion with HR at an actual company).
Understandable; no time to check details when your fuse is that short
The second button is actually a pretty major change!
It means both.
It had a reasonably clear warning, though; a screenshot is included in this response from the devs. But note that the response also links to another issue where some bikeshedding on the warning occurred and the warning was ultimately improved.
In reality, that was added four and a half years after this issue was opened.
Yes, the dialog was changed, as part of this linked issue (and maybe again after that; this whole incident is very old). After reading some of the comments on that issue, I agree with the reasoning with some of the commenters that it would be less surprising for that menu option to behave like git reset --hard and not delete tracked files.
The user clicked an option to “discard” all changes. They then got a very clear pop-up saying that this is destructive and cannot be undone (there’s a screenshot in the thread).
Doesn’t prolog already “not work half the time”? (Disclaimer: I haven’t used it.)
The author actually agrees with this take, and even links to this post making it explicit: https://intercoolerjs.org/2016/05/08/hatoeas-is-for-humans.html
The article is more about the behavior of members of the C++ committee than about the language. (It also has quite a few tangents.)
I understand what you’re saying, but I want to do whatever I can to promote the shift in attitudes that’s already happening across the industry.
And being late or never delivering out of fear of shipping buggy code is even worse.
From a business perspective, yes, usually true. But shipping buggy software can also harm your company’s reputation. I doubt that this has been researched enough yet to be quantifiable, but it’s easy to think of companies who were well known for shipping bugs (Microsoft, CD Projekt Red) and eventually suffered in one way or another for it. In both of those cases, you’re probably right; Windows was good enough in the 90s to dominate the desktop market, and Cyberpunk 2077 was enough of a technical marvel (for those who had the hardware to experience it) that it probably bolstered the studio’s reputation more than harmed it. But could Microsoft have weathered the transition to mobile OSes better if it hadn’t left so many consumers yearning for more reliable software? And is Microsoft not partly to blame for the general public just expecting computers to be generally flaky and unreliable?
Imagine if OSes in the 90s crashed as rarely as desktop OSes today. Imagine if desktop OSes today crashed as rarely as mobile OSes today. Imagine if mobile OSes crashed rarely enough that the average consumer never experienced it. Wouldn’t that be a better state of things overall?
I care about types not just because I like having stronger confidence in my own software, but because, as a user, bugs are really annoying, and yes, I’m confident that stronger type systems could have caught bugs I’ve seen in the wild as a user.
You are saying “yes” to a comment explaining why the Google AI response cannot possibly be correct, so what do you mean “and [it’s] correct”?
Creation is easy, assuming the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics!
Delete prior iterations of the loop in the same timeline? I’m not sure there’s anything in quantum mechanics to permit that…
In the universe where the list is sorted, it doesn’t actually matter how long the destruction takes!
Reminds me of quantum-bogosort: randomize the list; check if it is sorted. If it is, you’re done; otherwise, destroy this universe.
Or Stockholm Syndrome
For anyone else wondering, here’s the text of the actual email cited as the CoC violation: