someonebaggy

That's what we thought about all the other species we intentionally eradicated, both the ones that turned out to be unimportant, and the ones that turned out to be very important.

It's already happened. The concern is always about changes from the present state, no matter what the present state is. Once screwworms have already been eradicated from North America, there is concern about the impact of bringing them back.

Between a person who can unclog the sink and a person who can trim the hedges which one is on a higher level?

Why does that make it good?

Yes, some of those parts are evil. The mere lack of releasing source code, or being frustrated people are using your product without paying, itself isn't.

But now you're describing a system that looks and acts differently every time you use it.

> Such as whether a callee-saved register really does need to be saved in some particular routine.

Ironically this is your preconceived abstraction of how a compiler has to operate. An ideal compiler could allocate registers differently for each called function: F1()->F2()->F3(), F1 uses r0-5, F2 uses r6-10, F3 uses r11-15, no register saving required in the whole chain. There's no need for a fixed ABI. Such a compiler would look very different from today's ones.

What if the last 999 times wolf experts announced there were a dangerous number of wolves, no wolves were found?

Is the flaw on their side or your side?

Compilers are pretty good. Really good, even. But languages, even C, are abstractions, which necessarily constrain the level below. This threaded-code jump thing is just not possible to express in C. Even the best abstraction can often be beaten by something the abstraction can't express. Self-modifying code is one example. So is this threaded interpreter with its non-structured control flow.

But it takes longer. It's more difficult. That's why the abstraction exists and is still very useful despite its limitations.

IRC has a completely separate problem - it hasn't evolved to deal with the modern world. The online/offline model with persistent connection while online is a total anachronism. And you can't send a screenshot through it - even email can do that.

Make it a browser extension, then you can block or override pages based on the URL or page content.

It was like this before AI.

IDK though - this is how Office ended up with its ribbon. They realised Paste was the most common action so they gave it a big button right at the left side, and then cut and copy got smaller buttons next to it. And similarly they reordered all the buttons according to frequency of action.

Result? When you have an intent in mind, it's hard to find the right button! In office 2003, you could click on the "insert" menu and every item there was something that would go into your document. If you're thinking "I want to add a picture" you can click on "insert" and scan through for picture-related items. (Blender does this too). In the 2007 ribbon model it would - well that one would probably be on the default visible ribbon because it's a frequent action - but what if you want to insert a table of contents? Who knows where that button is.

Abstraction stacks hiding complexity all the way down. Maybe the kernel touch driver sometimes reports duplicate events due to a race condition, so the user mode library drops events it thinks are duplicates... Maybe the application changes some shadow DOM state when you touch and the framework ignores events while the real DOM is out of sync and thinks it's also being clever by deferring the DOM sync... Maybe it's just polling every 200ms for a current touch.

Once I tried writing an app in early windows style: inside the mouse down handler redraw the button as pressed, etc. Not setting the button state to pressed and triggering a redraw, but actually changing the pixels inside the handler. It's a huge layering violation but it's actually refreshing to cut through all the BS and make the computer just do the right thing, and it actually worked better most of the time than a modern framework app.

They did this the last 999 times and always came to the same conclusion: that the AI promoters were talking nonsense. At what point should you stop listening to people who only talk nonsense so far, to avoid getting DoS attacked? Must the villagers look for the wolf every time the boy cries?

Weaponization of closed source software could take many forms and is just part of the general weaponization of market mechanisms that businesses do.

Right now it doesn't really affect me that Ableton Live is closed-source. But it would affect me if the main method of sharing music on the internet was Ableton Live project files. And if Ableton had cultivated that situation on purpose they would be weaponizing the closedness of their software.

I use my least reputable domains to send emails that are most important for the recipient and least important for me. If they don't receive it now it's their problem not mine.

At some point doesn't it become easier to write the function explicitly? As in

    go [] = ...
    go head:remainder = ...

instead of hacking it together with a fold?

A list in Haskell is a singly-linked list with the possibility of tail sharing.

No - non-customizability is a design goal of the GNOME desktop, since they want the experience to be identical for everyone.

The thing being described would have been in the 1980s.

Closed source software is a reality, not an explicit evil. It is the same reason I don't have schematics for my bedframe. I've worked at software companies - have you? - it takes extra effort to release source code, causes a lot of risk, and provides absolutely no benefit whatsoever so it is simply irrational to do it.

Wow, then there we go: don't hate the player, hate the game. You're telling me even Bill Gates wasn't evil until the system forced him to either become evil or get shut down.

What's meant by "your device's real-time OS"? Heard several variations of this questioning recently and it seems more like FUD than anything else. I presume it's a telephone game away from the fact that some modem processors have DMA access and WAN-side exploits?

Whatever Graphene or Lineage supports. Google doesn't even have magic power over all phone makers, let alone all ROMs.

They would have either sucked it up and supported the 11, or shut down the GrapheneOS project completely.

They are stronger possibilities once you know they are going to happen eventually, not just that they could theoretically happen.

Then they'll be breaching their contract with Google so they'll lose the benefits of the contract, such as being allowed to preinstall the play store or Google apps like Gmail, or to call them Android devices. They might also be required to pay Google millions or billions of dollars in compensation for lost revenue, such as the 30% play store tax Google would have received had the contract been upheld.

That's a deregulated market. A free market is more like an android phone (minus developer ID verification) where everyone gets a space, you can do what you want in your space, you can't intrude on others' spaces without consent, and the market is formed and boundaries are enforced by some higher power who is not part of the market and is out of reach of all market participants.

Or, you know, any actual market. Where I can sell whatever I want from my stall but I can't sabotage other people's stalls.