Suppose we all did read the docs. How possible is it with the complexity of a modern system to really take literally everything in account, and understand the implications oof everything to keep your system safe? It’s great that it’s documented, but if security isn’t the default option, it will lead to issues, and everything has become so complex, that imo correctly managing everything is literally impossible… This is a systemic issue, not a user issue.

I haven’t seen it mentioned here yet, but software freedom conservancy is doing a fundraiser to bring bambulab to court, any donation from now till half july will be part of the fundraiser: https://sfconservancy.org/donate/

Can you agree we can’t put an infinite amount of people on a finite planet?

So that by default the discussion is not if overpopulation can exist, but when we reached it? If you don’t feel we reached it yet, i can imagine that. It’s a very tough topic. But just the very basic facts of existing on a planet of finite size means that there can only be so many of us before everything collapses.

And which fascist things do you associate with the “overpopulation” topic (i imagine for example the one child policy in china?). It’s not because something has been used by fascism, that it’s inherently fascist.

Current agricultural progress is mostly about needing as few people as possible for farming, not making enough food for everyone. It’s widely known there is plenty of food, the issues are social as to why some are still hungry, not technological.

And in the end, we’re on a finite planet, so whichever way you look at it, keeping increasing population numbers has to end somewhere, so the question is not does enough humans exist, but what is enough, and i think there are plenty of arguments thaht we’re overpopulating the earth already.

You’re quickly glossing over all the issues.

“human population has only been able to increase thanks to innovation”: and that’s a good thing? What would be wrong with a more manageable human population?

“If you want to go back to nature, by all means do.”: how? The world has advanced beyond that, it’s clearly not an option.

“the only way forward is through science and innovation”: if science & innovation is what you call forward, then obviously yes, but that’s just a tautology. What is your measure of “forward”? If it’s power over nature, advancements, … then for sure. If it’s respecting this earth and not long term ruining the entire planet… how sure are you about that?

“limiting roundup”: ah, an innovation that should be limited. What went wrong that it was globally used before we were sure enough about its side effects? How sure are you about all the current innovations that they don’t have similar issues? How sure are you about this bee superfood not having disastrous long term effects?

If you ignore all the issues with it though, innovation is incredible for sure!

I’m interested in your opinion, but can you like maybe not just post a personal attack, and explain why you think what the guy you replied to is stupid?

From my experience, what he describes really reflects what we see happening in the world all the time. layers of layers of us causing issues, and then solving them with more technologies, creating new problems, etc… etc… etc…

And the big bet is that we’re not digging ourselves into a very deep hole. In the end, the existential threat of global warming is one of the examples. We kept solving problems with burning more & more burning of fossil fuels, and then suddenly “o crap”.

The “optimized for features” bothered me a bit of concept.

I think i now narrowed it down on how i see it: It’s optimized for predictability, and lack of need of really skilled people. Real optimization requires real skill, and is inherently unpredictable. You can aim high, but how achievable it is, isn’t always clear up front. But the current way, makes software engineering more predictable, and hiring also, you just need average programmers who can more or less use frameworks the way they’re intended, and that’s enough.

It’s just planning for what you know is predictable, and you can actually promise to your customers. And it does kind of suck, but from an economic/business sense, i can kind of understand it…

Can you then give me your definition of “lazyness” The dictionary just gives me “the quality of being unwilling to work or use energy; idleness.”

And i don’t see it anywhere in this situation. They’re asked to do a job a certain way (or for management, to make sure it happens in a certain way), and they do that to the best of their ability.

Could they do it better from an performance/software engineering standpoint if they had infinite time/budget? for sure. But that’s not the world we live in.

Wouldn’t he only be lazy if he’s not doing anything else more productive instead?

He gets payed to do a specific job, and does it the best way possible given the constraints. I don’t see how you find lazyness in that.

The customer simply isn’t willing to pay the extra time for it to be optimized, and he ain’t doing it for free.

I don’t know which job you do, but do you spend a lot of voluntary overtime just to do things the customer isn’t even asking or paying for just because you think it’s better?

It’s not just software development, it’s everywhere. Devices are cheap, people are expensive. So it’s not lazy, he’s being asked to put his expensive time into efforts the customer actually wants to pay for. If having him optimize the code further costs way more than buying a better computer, it doesn’t make sense economically for him to waste his time on that.

Is that yet another example of how the economy has strange incentives? For sure, but that doesn’t make him lazy.