The cloudflare bug was the equivalent of an uncaught exception caused by a malformed config file. There's no recovery from a malformed config file - the software couldn't possibly have done its job. What's salient is that they were using an alternative to exceptions, because people were told exceptions were error-prone, and using this thing instead would make it easier to write bug-free code. But don't do the equivalent of not catching them!

And then, it turned out to not really be any better than exceptions.

Most Rust evangelism is like this. "In Rust you do X and this makes your code have fewer bugs!" Well no it doesn't. Manually propagating exceptions still makes the program crash and requires more typing, and doesn't emit a stack trace.

That was why I brought it up. I wasn't trying to be snarky or haughty. Thank you for filling in the gaps, I should have done that instead of the 1-liner.

I see even the coreutils maintainers find themselves needing -n (no newlines) and -c (count) options to "yes".

GNU coreutils is known for adding command libe options.

One of the big philosophical differences to the BSD's.

For a human being, it sucks both ways.

A site that hijacks the back button. Pressing back takes you to the loading screen, which takes you forward to the site again. Ouch.

Appears not to take over Safari for me.

Or Firefox.

you have 85 minutes to delete "(what is it with fish?)" which ruins the joke

Why would you write in C++ then wrap it in a C++ to JavaScript wrapper then wrap it in a JavaScript to C++ wrapper

That is a hack. It shouldn't need to swap - it should just be able to start using it as normal memory when under memory pressure.

I'm sure it was much easier to implement than what you're describing. So it's a hack indeed.

You must not live under an HOA. They'll fine you for not making your house look the same as everyone else's.

There is patent law. Patent law says you can't do the patented thing without the license. Growing the seeds is patented. So you can't grow them without license. This may be so obvious that it never needed to become a notable precedent-setting case.

Nice of you to axiomatically rederive patent law for us, but this is false. You cannot be sued simply for allowing seeds that blew onto your land grow.

You can for using them commercially.

Feel free to cite a case where that happened. I don't think you can.

IMO SCOTUS should retain the power to interpret vagaries of law; Congress still holds ultimate power, as it can pass a more specific law overriding their interpretation.

What about striking down unconstitutional laws, though? That has to be up to SCOTUS, nobody else can do it.

SCOTUS granted itself that power. Their originalist powers are extremely limited.

So do not listen to justices that claim to be "originalist". SCOTUS authority to strike laws is self dealing and not at all an originalist power.

The original expectation was the public would demand such change via elections every 2-6 years and remove the corrupted Senator or Representative.

SCOTUS is not supposed to have power over theoretical cases yet it operates on concepts all the time. Just another way in which the system is rigged; the appeals of originalists who have clearly read the words, they're plain English, are just more self dealing power away from the public to the elites

This is just not true. Yes the SCOTUS ruled that it had the right to judicial review, because that's what the constitution said it had the power to do. This isn't "granting itself that power" anymore than Congress granted itself the power to pass laws or the president granting themselves the power to execute laws.