ori_prior
Software also has an ongoing quality crisis, all while being more and more influential in people's lives. That person's attitude towards writing quality software helps to deepen that crisis and is therefore harmful.
My alma mater (FAU Erlangen, https://fau.de ) did have some internal and external IPv6 already back when addresses were still 6bone 3ffe::, 20 years ago. Don't know since when the main website has been IPv6-reachable, but it has definitely been over 10 years.
What I'm still desperately looking for is proper self-hosted full-phone backups for Android phones.
xfs integrates well into linux and has had excellent performance. zfs is rather odd as a filesystem and circumvents several common linux mechanisms, making it rather awkward. You need to special case everything for zfs in monitoring (sizes are hierarchical overlapping instead of exclusive), ACL support and admin tooling (volume management and partitioning is completely different for zfs, trim is weird, booting is weird). zfs performance is also lacking due to it being very odd and special-casey in the linux kernel, as well as RAM-hungry.
Which means that after an initial period of half a year of "production is still slow, you have to wait" and another half year of "we maybe start selling this to Europe now", for the device I've bought today, updates will last a mere 2 years.
The performance reference is xterm. If you cannot beat that, don't bother.
Note that there are some misleading efficiency claims for gas plants around 60%, but those are not for thermal-to-electric efficiency but for generating electricity plus district heating from waste heat.
There is a thing called "intelligence". There are several definitions of it, the one I'd like to use here is "the ability to infer general principles and common workings from small isolated samples and apply those principles and workings".
So if you are sufficiently intelligent, you can infer, from observing a few (or even one) doorhandle being pushed, that his is the general way to open doors. You can then apply this principle maybe even to different doors, windows, rotating knobs, etc. The fewer samples you need to learn and the broader your application range after learning, the more intelligent you are. In the stupidest case, one only learns to open one specific kind of door in one specific way, like a cat might.
You are writing from the point of view of someone sufficiently intelligent to derive the working principles of software and apply it to other software packages that generally serve the same purpose. However, there are people who are not intelligent enough to do that. Those people do get by by just following instructions, learning by rote which buttons to click for which purpose. Those people are the "door opening cats" of the office application world.
Less intelligent people like those do exist (50% do have an IQ<100 after all...), they do get jobs and they can be successful within limits. Just as Stackoverflow/ChatGPT-copy&paste-programmers do get by somehow.
Which is why I'm also a fan of intelligence-test-type job application processes. The ability to learn, for higher-level jobs, is far more important than preexisting knowledge. And intelligence is the best known predictor for the ability to learn.
Yes, I'd expect any car guy to be able to change your tires. Or change your oil. But even resetting the oil-change alarm or tire-pressure sensor can be a hurdle here:
Manufacturers also use skill issues to their advantage to bind tradespeople. Modern cars do need manufacturer-specific diagnostic devices that used to be unobtainable for independent shops. Since that practice has been largely forbidden by the authorities, now the software, cabling, and diagnostic output are made intentionally hard to understand without having taken the corresponding lessons that the manufacturer provides for a modest fee.
Your run-of-the-mill business drone will be trained on Word/Excel/Outlook and be hard to impossible to retrain on anything else (either because of actual stupidity or resistance to change). This already starts at school where "Informatik" is often just learning where to click in Microsoft products.
Similarly, tradespeople often specialize in certain tools and products. Your average car repair guy will often be forced to specialize in one brand of car. Your home appliance guy will preferrably sell and repair one brand of washing machine, dryer, dishwasher.
Justice and injustice are entirely subjective, there can be no objective measure of those. Why? Because they stem from an individual's value system. Which is the subjective measures (good, bad, nice, rude, just, unjust, ...) that the individual applies to objective facts (Jimmy getting a birthday gift, somebody starving, lion eating a zebra, drinking a glass of water...). A value system can try to be logical, consistent, aligned with certain goals, but it doesn't have to be. Sometimes, it can't be. Society and especially "the law" try to institute common majority value system that is intended to be consistent, logical and aligned with certain goals, rooted in a few assumptions like self-preservation, equality, preservation of humanity, human-centricity, and others. Not all of those goals and assumptions are necessarily equally firm, established, or unchanging.
Now in the foodstamps example, the two goals of self-preservation of an individual and the preservation of humanity are valued higher than the more abstract goal of equality. Which is why I, in my value system, see the choice as an obvious one. Of course others might disagree, but I've assumed this (without pointing it out) to be the majority consensus. Sorry. There are even societies where the majority value system is different in that one need not or should not help a starving individual. Because they do deserve their suffering as (carmic, divine) punishment, or that society is made stronger by culling the weak.
ADA measures (that affect individuals) are also very different in that existing and proven disabilities are the reason to alleviate problems from those exact disabilities. They aren't blanket bonuses for some races in the way university admissions were before the most recent supreme court decision.
That said, Rust is okay because it uses symbols, but not okay because it uses them in very weird ways. Macro function stuff that needs a ! like whatever!() is aggravating. The exclamation mark is easy to overlook, easy to mix up with letters, isn't surrounded by spaces and frankly I do not see the point. That syntax doesn't really add anything to the safety of the language that couldn't just be done with a few 'you are overriding stuff' warnings. Actually it makes things worse, because if somebody has stuff() and stuff!() defined, there is hard-to-distinguish weirdness going on. Also aggravating but not as dangerous are 'labels. Oh, and angle brackets like <'stuff> that could easily also be comparison operators somwhere else. Rust would have had the opportunity to fix the mistakes in C++, but it just copied them.
Oh, and all the 'mut' everywhere is also weird noise that would be easier if left out. Most things are 'mut', so write out 'const' instead.