Being unable to give an actual example proves you're just a foaming-mouth hater with nothing to contribute.

I agree with you, but at the same time I can't think of any other candidate that would both (1) have enough name recognition to motivate semi-apathetic democrats to vote, and (2) not rile up the semi-apathetic bigots into counter-voting.

According to the gossip, Biden has said that if he does choose to step down, he'll promote Harris. I don't think Democrats will have much of a problem supporting Harris, but I'm concerned being a woman of color will motivate a lot of bigots into a counter-vote when they might have otherwise stayed home. The next best pick might be Buttigieg, but then you get the homophobic bigots coming out for the counter-vote. Newsom might be the next best after that, but then you have the anti-California lunatics coming out to counter-vote him.

As much as I don't want to cater to bigots, I think the stakes are just too high here. If it were a campaign against Mitt Romney then I wouldn't think twice about running any of these people, but when we're on a razor's edge against America spiraling into a fascist dictatorship, every risk needs to be accounted for.

Obviously Biden should've declared back in August that he wouldn't run for reelection so the Democrats could run a primary and build up someone to have name recognition and a positive image, but now it's too late for that 🤷‍♂️

I find that meat eaters' reactionary indignation to the facts of the harm caused by eating meat is way more aggressive than veg_ns trying to point out to people that we're literally killing ourselves as a species.

It's somehow even stupider when people who are veg_n like yourself act like it's offensive to promote the importance of veg_nism to a world that will otherwise die.

I really don't care how many people like me when it comes at the cost of the continued existence of humanity. I have no remorse about shoving an uncomfortable message into the faces of people who need to hear it.

I'm pretty sure getting very worked up over someone using the word "asshat" is actually more likely to be something a literal child would do than using the word "asshat". Take that for whatever it's worth.

Your interpretation is simply not supported by the literal words being said by the person. "we can sit down and talk about my rates" implies that this person already has rates that they charge for the labor they do.

You're projecting a meaning into the person's words that simply aren't there because you want it to fit a narrative that has is not commensurate with reality.

You brought up your credentials earlier so now I'll bring up mine: My full time job, which I get paid a very competitive salary for, is to develop exclusively open source software. I have many collaborators in the industry, both at my same organization and from others (some non profits, some academic labs, some government agencies, but mostly private for-profit organizations) who contribute to open source projects either full time or part time.

I don't have one single collaborator who is the mythical unreliable open source volunteer you're talking about. Every single person I've worked with has a commercial or professional (i.e. academic, mission-driven) interest in the developmental health of open source software. When we decide what dependencies we use, we rule out anything that looks like a pet project or something with amateur maintenance because we know if the maintainer slacks off or goes rogue then that's going to be our problem.

The xz case is especially pernicious. This is a person who by all initial appearances was a respected professional doing respectable work. He/they (perhaps there was a team involved) went to great lengths to quietly infiltrate the ecosystem. I guarantee someone could do the same thing at a private company, but admittedly they're less likely to have as broad of an impact as they can by targeting the open source ecosystem.

I really wish you would just stop trying to defend Linux and open source development, and listen to the concept/opinion I'm actually stating

I am listening, and I'm telling you that you're wildly misunderstanding the nature of the open source industry. You, like many many other software developers, are ignorant about the vast bulk of widely used open source software gets developed.

Nature is a paywalled journal and I'm not going to spend money to be proven right when the headline says it all: Climate experts are divided over whether CDR is a necessary requirement or a dangerous distraction from limiting emissions.

Why do you think that division exists? Because scientists can be bought out by industry interests. One side understands the problem and the other side is saying whatever's needed to get a paycheck.

We're past honey or vinegar. The only honey in this situation is to ignore the problems and keep living our normal comfortable lives until everything irrecoverably falls apart around us.

If you've chosen honey you've chosen extinction.

You can call it writing buggy code based on misconceptions, but the fact that it's possible (and not even especially difficult) to misuse smart pointers badly enough to produce program crashes and undefined behavior is still a fundamental weakness of C++ as a language.

As a counterexample, this type of bug is impossible to produce in Rust without explicitly using the unsafe keyword, and that keyword is something that is almost never used by regular developers and is an easy thing to audit for.

Edit: That being said, if you're stuck using C++ then obviously using smart pointers is the right thing to do whereas using raw pointers and managing the memory yourself is completely asinine, so if the author's point is to not use smart pointers in C++ then I suppose they want you to just... Leak memory? Because if you're able to figure out where it's safe to free a raw pointer, then you're able to figure out how to correctly use a smart pointer in that situation.