P5fRxh5kUvp2th

Is your argument that the law specifically has language interpreting its goal?

Can you quote it please, because I find that surprising.

I hate this word but it's about consent. If an 8 year old enables voice chat they're consenting to the shit that comes out of it. They may not fully understand what they're getting into, but that's a different issue.

perfect is the enemy of good here, the other poster is arguing that because it's not perfect and is easily circumvented that it will have no effect, and, as you said, we all know this isn't true.

stop tilting at windmills,

the question is whether or not the government can force you to pay for a __PRIVATE__ service just for __EXISTING__ within the borders of the US.

There is __NO PRECEDENT__ for this. The closest you can get are things like car insurance where you're required to carry insurance in order to drive on US roads. You can choose not to drive, you cannot choose to "not exist".

That puts this into an entirely different category. The fact that it originally got rationalized as a tax opens a whole different can of worms. Good luck refusing to pay taxes.

Well it certainly isn't so I don't have to understand what an ADO exception is.

Slavery was also considered above-board at one point, so...

lets not use that as justification, shall we?

carrying private service X is required for you to exist in the united states. If you don't pay for X, you get fined Y as a punishment.

yep, I'm sure the powers-that-be considering that above-board should be the only justification we need!

It's redundant.

The message (a string) will give you that information, nothing is lost by catching a base Exception and writing it to a log.

typed exceptions is about special handling. The type information allows the programming language to offer special handling when that is necessary, it is NOT meant to replace good error messages.

But it also isn't about taxonomy, which is something that a lot of people miss. It's putting the cart before the horse.

---

But you specifically talked about debugging. If you're talking about interacting with an attached debugger, the developer already has everything they need, there is no reason why specific, typed, exceptions are needed to assist that.

so you MUST be talking about general debugging by reading logs and the like, but those logs will tell you both the error message and the stack trace with the specific line that originally threw. Unless, of course, you're catching and rewrapping the exception and throwing that information away...

I've been slowly making my way through the Walking Dead season 10 on Netflix.

I legitimately will skip probably 60-70% of the episodes. They'll seriously skip from one scene of super-slow angsty bullshit to another scene with other characters involved in super-slow angsty bullshit.

I watch just enough to get the point and then skip the next 5-10 minutes until the next scene shows up, at which point I'll watch just enough to get the point ... ad nauseum.

----

It doesn't have to be like this, but JFC I'm not interested in someone spending 10 minutes expressing what a normal human being would express in 1 because the producer thinks slowing their speech patterns down to .0001x is somehow more dramatic.

I cannot wait for this trend to pass because it's absolutely not just the walking dead.

Typed exceptions convey a bit of information to enable specialized handling at runtime, they are not meant to try and make debugging easier.

> Just because it's useful to wrap exceptions in 5% of the cases doesn't mean you should wrap the rest 95% just in case. YAGNI.

I'm going to curse here, but ... fucking seriously.

If I get a .net ADO exception coming out of a 3rd party library it's absolutely not going to shock me or throw me for a loop. But do you know what IS a pain in the ass? Using 3 different libraries, all that wrap that same ADO exception in their own custom exception.

calling insurance a tax is about as strong an indication of regulatory capture as I can think of.

It should have never been a tax specifically because it's an unconstitutional act. Calling it a tax is the letter vs the spirit of the constitution.

If you and others like yourself want to ensure everyone has health insurance then __make it mandatory for the state to pay for it__. Anything else and you're just taxing the poor for being poor.

it's fire, if they're ever not doing it with the same fervor then we have a problem.

It's one thing to declare something too dangerous and work on containment, but what's being described here isn't that.

yes, I can't speak to the specific algorithm google uses for account lookup, but if an email comes in for firstnamelastname@gmail.com and it doesn't exist but firstname.lastname@gmail.com DOES exist, google will send it to that mailbox.

That's true, but that's really on google.

anecdote:

I got an email one day to me (first and last name) for the receipt of a small medical purchase that definitely wasn't mine. At first I thought was getting scammed.

Then I realized, the only thing that was correct was my first and last name. Address, last 4 of PAN, state, everything was incorrect.

Upon opening the eml directly I realized it was actually sent to firstnamelastname@gmail.com, whereas my email address is firstname.lastname@gmail.com (note the period).

Did some googling, there was in fact someone with my first and last name in the area of the address.

I called the phone number given, it was indeed a man with the same first and last name. Explained what happened and forwarded the email.

So while, yes, Uber absolutely should be doing better, so should google.

I'm guessing someone is going to tell me that's correct behavior according to the spec, and if so, the spec is wrong, full stop. Those are not the same email addresses.

You fix it for future users, current users get the benefit as well.

don't be an ass, he said it's been in the fast lane to bankruptcy _SINCE MAY_.

Any jackass can formulate an argument against someone by misquoting, the real skill is in doing it while being accurate.

I drive old vehicles, but a few years ago I got the itch and walked into a Toyota dealership. When I was told they don't offer vehicles without the screen I walked out and have basically refused to purchase anything with such a screen.

I've driven a few rentals with them and yes, they're not the most terrible thing ever, but they definitely are inferior to not having them. I really hope what you're saying will come to pass and we'll get rid of them or have a better version of their functionality because they are so obviously unsafe it's nuts to me they were ever put in.

I think Honda announced they would be getting rid of them, if I were to buy a new vehicle today it would most likely be them for that reason alone, despite me being loyal to Toyota up to this point (I just trust their vehicles).

This was my interpretation as well.

inferior to digital media my ass, DRM on digital media hosing my linux partition is what pushed me to exclusively use steam and gog.

This smacks of an argument over a PR.

subjective reasons are still reasons, and they can still be valid reasons.

Having watched it I don't agree with your take at all.

He was very clear that it's speculative, and at no point did make it seem as if we had solved fusion. In fact, he goes to great length to talk about the challenges that have kept us from solving fusion.

That one seemed odd to me, what I'm wondering if it's hentai images. I can't think of any other way for it to be a victimless crime.

I've become cautious when people caution about guru's with an air of authority.

> My favorite examples are splitting methods to reduce their size, and user story estimation (applies to both story points and man-days). No clear path to an end goal, not a single time so far.

Who here believes you asked that of someone and they couldn't give you an answer involving the words "simplicity", "readable", "understandable", etc?

> So, like React.

heh, that's exactly what went through my head when I read the other posters comment, how is that different from the current SPA frameworks?

yep, perfect example is the history API. People created the problem that the history API fixes by doing things they shouldn't have been doing in the first place.

You see it all the time in software dev.

It was just an example, replace SSN with password if you'd prefer.

This is how I remember it as well.

Nintendo was public about dropping out of the console fight and doing their own thing, which is still true to this day with the switch.

You've gotten lost in the weeds, my original comment said town hall (or town square if you prefer), and twitter IS analogous to a town hall where people gather to speak to audiences.

Town got pulled in when I pointed out that rights over speech wrt to these places still exist even though someone can move to a different town (to presumably gain access to a different town hall).

Someone should go tell that to existing utility companies so they can argue they can't be more highly regulated than other companies.

aka, we already have precedence for this sort of thing.

you can beat any analogy to death, it doesn't mean you should.

> Or people could just not use the service and move onto a different one?

And people can just move to a different town, that doesn't stop us from having laws in place to guarantee rights in the current town.