“Most are the gradual result of discovering better ways to do things over 20 years, while staying compatible with older applications.” (PSD apologist Tim Wright)
There is no force more destructive.
There is no force more destructive.
You disagree with someone, awesome. That's not a reason to try to ridicule that person imo.
Not if you know what the word "apologist" means (it has nothing to do with ridicule). Try using Google.
Edit: dang has criticised my last sentence there, which is fair enough. It was meant as a dig. However, if you are unsure of the meaning of a word and are using either Firefox or Chrome, you can select the word, right-click, and choose "Search with Google" and Google will actually give you the definition for that word. It's a (relatively) new feature they've added. Also, search with "etymology" to find the origin of a word.
This comment would be strictly better without that final swipe. Please don't do that on HN.
The world isn't an SAT test. Context always always always matters. (And, for extra context-matters, if you are now compelled, at the end of this post, to ask what a "Standard Aptitude Test test" is, I invite you to take a good long look at your life and ask yourself why you want to be That Guy because nobody likes That Guy.)
It's much the same as getting mad when somebody uses "hacker" to mean something other than "train and/or computer nerd". You don't get to lay a prescriptive claim to truth.
I am an apologist for the ideas of democracy, the rule of law and equality before it. As I am for certain aspects of attempts to achieve such. I am not any kind of apologist for facism, totalitarianism and ideologies that lead to such.
From a slightly different angle that may make the example clearer:
The so called "2 party" democracy has it's drawbacks, one of which is often labeled "partisanship" or something like that. I am an apologist for that, while acknowledging its imperfections and problems. The concept of the loyal opposition is the thing that seems to have worked best so far, I would argue it has worked best by such a huge margin that alternatives are scarcely worth considering other than as the enemy of freedom.