My question was rhetorical and intended to point out that granting an exception for 'good' software to do a bad thing is just allowing bad actor to do the bad thing.
Then, when the exception has to be revoked, the backlash is massive. Look up the recent example of the driver FanControl used to issue SMBus commands being blacklisted.
I was pointing out that keystroke injection is already the norm. The exception is banning it for some software.
It has been the norm since we first started automating processes designed more for people than automation. It will remain the norm for as long as that exists.
Unless you live in Antarctica it doesn't "affect you" in the skin cancer from sun exposure way, just in the "general climate issue" way. And we're not discussing that here.
You do know that the 'ozone hole' got fixed, right? It's not back to baseline, but the Montreal Protocol is one of the major achievements of collaborative science and eco-politics of the late 20th century.
There is some global thinning, but it's minor. If you don't live literally at the south pole where the actual hole is, it's not a huge change compared to most other sources of skin cancer risk.
Figma has become absolutely shocking in the past few years. The performance is so bad these days. It doesn’t help that almost every designer doesn’t care to split things into more than one document. I’ve seen Figma documents with hundreds of screens.
> It doesn’t help that almost every designer doesn’t care to split things into more than one document
That’s how these tools encourage you to use them. If the tool crumbles under its own usage modalities, that’s because it’s poorly designed, not the user’s fault.
You don't need to split into multiple files to make large documents manageable, multiple pages works just fine (pages you're not using aren't loaded). But even still, I have absolutely massive pages with ~100 screens on them that work just fine on this base-tier M2 MBA.
Honestly given the complexity of the screens involved I feel Figma's performance is pretty reasonable. (Now, library publish and update - that's still unreasonably slow IMO)
Fears about refactoring introducing bugs are fine and valid - but after eight years, haven't really happened. Seems the extensive test suite did its job.
This isn't a case of Python 2 v 3. Packages weren't broken en masse. The API remained stable.
If anything, the rewrite has proved that it is mature. Because they could perform a refactor without breaking everyone's everyday.
I agree. I remember very few bugs caused by the rewrite, but I don't remember recent ones.
For example, I found a bug running the tests of the r7rs package, it was simplified to a bug in "plain" Racket and later fixed, 3 days after the initial report. It was in June 2019 https://github.com/racket/racket/issues/2675 Note that at that time, the default version of Racket was he old one (before the rewrite).
Okta has committed to and has had a consitent track record of delivering at least one full scale security breach and the consistent user expericence degradation to their customers every year – and completely free of charge.
Scheme is fairly well suited to both general programming, and abstract math, which tends to be a good fit for AoC.
reply