21–30 of 219 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like that section ruins the joke.
Maybe it’s just me, but I fundamentally disagree with the mentality that we should prioritize the “feeling of being special” among those who already get the joke (and corresponding point) at the expense of those who have yet to appreciate the message. You can still laugh at the joke with the section there, you’ll just have fewer confused people to correct, and be in one less elite club.
It’s great satire, but it really does mirror a larger societal shift where the burden of safeguarding personal autonomy has shifted from institutions/regulators to individual users. Do-Not-Stab, Do-Not-Track, whatever it might be, any sort of “voluntary compliance” is a non-starter in the face of financial pressures IMO we need to start normalizing being militant about this stuff again, to aggressively and adversaria…
> it’s fucking depressing when even the fucking bare minimum form of regulation is followed to the letter and no more, because every company out there fucking hates you and would sell you out to make a bit more money if they legally could. and even if they couldn’t, who’s going to stop them? Certainly not any government. If you think the EU's regulation are of any help to the consumer you are gravely mistaken. The EU…
This is such transparent EU Bureaucracy shilling. No wonder Europe doesn't have any large SaaS companies with their stabbing unfriendly business climate.
This is such transparent EU Bureaucracy shilling. No wonder Europe doesn't have any large SaaS companies with their stabbing unfriendly business climate.
This is such transparent EU Bureaucracy shilling. No wonder Europe doesn't have any large SaaS companies with their stabbing unfriendly business climate.
This is such transparent EU Bureaucracy shilling. No wonder Europe doesn't have any large SaaS companies with their stabbing unfriendly business climate.
For Microsoft this also rings true from the opposite direction. Any specification that Microsoft technically abides is implemented in an egregiously dark way (at least for anything consumable at an enterprise level).
They go to great lengths to exercise every bit of leeway permitted by the spec, even when it doesn't make economical sense, because what are you gonna do about it? Vote with your wallet? Against the vendor that runs all your workstations and manages your directories and databases and deployments and authentication and authorization and business intelligence and and and?
No, you're gonna accommodate their absurd counter-requirements because what other choice do you have? The decision then becomes:
1. branch your code to shit with `vendor == microsoft` clauses
2. branch your project/architecture to shit and effectively maintain a Microsoft version alongside the "normal" core version
3. use Microsoft's bespoke library that solves the problem they created
A project that selects option 3 will face the least resistance integrating with Microsoft products, but will also become beholden to arbitrary rules that complicate integration with every other vendor who benevolently implements the standard.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A bit of lore that I learned in my networking class in college was that the RFC name was chosen as tongue in cheek in that by the time a proposal gets to the RFC stage, comments are very much not appreciated. You're supposed to comment well before that point. No idea if that bit of lore is true but it is certainly the case that RFCs are usually the final word on the relevant standard. In fact, once they get their ID,…
Then they should be renamed CFCs (closed for comments).