As a passionate Golang hater, I can gladly explain!

• It’s not just the repeated if err != nil, even though that’s already bad enough. But the really fucked up part is the := bullshit. It makes moving code around unnecessarily annoying, and it’s telling that few other languages share Golang’s approach.
• The lowercase/uppercase rules for private/public stuff is theoretically not a horrible idea, but it makes the code look much more inconsistent. I find _ much easier to read, and this leaves upper/lower to signal other details. But I see that this is mostly personal preference.
• Fairly basic operations take much, much more code than they should (e.g. deserializing JSON while handling extra args, or basic functional operations - though that should change sooner rather than later with the new generic methods, right?)
• The decision to initialize every non-pointer primitive with the “bottom value” (or whatever it’s called again) makes sense in isolation, but it’s really unfortunate that they don’t support additive types, because this means a bunch of common tasks need to use pointers, and unfortunately the type system is worthless when it comes to preventing segfaults caused by bugs with pointers.
• I find that most Go libraries have basically no documentation, if you’re lucky you get an example that might vaguely be related to whatever you want to know. I’ve had much better experiences in other languages.

All in all IMO most Go code is 5x longer than necessary to actually express itself in a readable manner, all because the language still doesn’t have proper error handling or generic support (until recently at least). At the same time it’s fairly inflexible, the type system is still shallow and basic, and it’s still way too easy to shoot yourself in the foot.

The only good thing Go has going is the single file deployments, but I’ll gladly spend one hour of every remaining day of my life setting up containers, if it means I never have to touch anything Go again.

Unfortunately that’s rarely true in the short term, and in the long term it’s still not a sure outcome.

@givesomefucks@lemmy.world is right in saying that capitalism keeps rewarding companies that dick over their customers (e.g. through exclusivity, vendor lock-ins etc). This reward can be big enough to essentially oust competitors that focus on convenience and affordability, or the competitors’ investors can push them to adopt the same practices to also make more money short term.

We won’t improve this by just ignoring it and hoping that companies will eventually recognize the advantages of ethical decision making. But we can force them to do so by regulating these unethical behaviors.

I’m not an expert, but kicking something to death while underwater is probably pretty hard.

(which, as I’ve said multiple times in this thread, cannot exist in the long run anyway so the problem will eventually solve itself)

Sure, you’ve said it multiple times, but it’s still wrong. Unless you’re trying to argue that the law of supply and demand doesn’t hold for house prices (spoilers, it does!) it’s simply wrong.

I’m not! I keep explicitly telling you that your point is wrong: banning property hoarders changes more than just increasing the housing supply by the amount they’ve hoarded, it also reduces the price of housing - and your response to that is to repeat your point.

When presented with a counterargument you should respond to it, instead of just repeating your point over and over.

Are you incapable of understanding that there is more to this discussion than just the supply of housing? Why do you keep ignoring my point?

How else am I supposed to understand this quote?

The TL;DR is that the maximum benefit you could have by eliminating investors is limited to the amount they’re participating in the market in the first place (which is much less than 100%).

Since we were talking about the price, I assumed that the “maximum benefit” was referring to that. Otherwise you’d be ignoring my point, so I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

You didn’t do any math, and your assertion that the change in pricing is proportional to the market share is completely wrong. That’s not how pricing in markets works.

That doesn’t matter! They are still inducing extra demand, which still raises prices for normal people trying to buy homes.

So suddenly the law of supply and demand conveniently no longer applies? By removing demand from the market, we’re not lowering prices?

Yet we’ve seen hundreds of examples of those smaller groups taking even bigger risks, and causing lots and lots of pain for their customers due to carelessness and greed.

But at least those smaller groups also take more money to do the same things the government does, and use those profits to take away control over the government from you and me!

Well, that’s a pretty useless approach for tech discussions, because this kind of attack is explicitly not possible on Firefox.

Also, extrapolating such a broad statement from the simple fact that it’s possible to unreliably detect the presence of a single broad category of extensions is a huge reach.

You can see if an ad is served and displayed or not

This doesn’t tell you which specific extensions a user has installed. First, the filter lists are mostly shared between ad blockers, so you can at best tell that some adblock extension is installed, but not which one. Second, the ad might fail to load for a variety of other reasons (e.g. user is offline, firewall blocking URLs/endpoints, network-level DNS adblock, …), so all you can tell is that the user might have an adblock extension installed. That’s far milder than your initial premise: “My point is that any assumption that your extensions are not detected is a delusion[…]”

you can detect if an iteraction was originated by an user or automatic

Sure, and how does this help with detecting the installed extensions? Knowing that the click event wasn’t triggered by the user doesn’t tell you who triggered it.

you can see if letters were pasted or input at a speed no human can match

Again, how does this help with detecting the installed extensions?

It is absolutely a secret! Based on the discussions I’ve seen, many people in the field were quite surprised that this technique works. So just like Meta’s recent-ish WebRTC scandal, this was a secret, even if the code always showed what it does.

My point is that any assumption that your extensions are not detected is a delusion

It is? How are these websites detecting my Firefox extensions?

Ah yes, who doesn’t read through the minified bundles of every page they open. I fucking love reading through megabytes of uglified code!

Yeah, they didn’t shoot in black-and-white. Everything was recorded in full color, but Nintendo blocked the release due to the similarity. So a bunch of interns had to manually take a screenshot of every frame, save it, import it into a cracked Photoshop copy, export that, and re-import it into the video editor.

Do you even know what any of the words you’re using mean? It doesn’t matter whether the Steam client is running in the runtime, you still want the same containerization to run your games, because that’s how they make sure the games run everywhere.

You’re just angrily flinging shit around without understanding what any of this is about. Don’t you have anything better to do?

Why the fuck is it weird for a client to run inside a runtime environment with well-defined library versions, when that client has to ship that runtime environment anyways to ensure the games can actually run on a broad range of systems?

Oh, sure, it’s so much better if the client relies on system libraries instead. Yes please, I like incompatibilities and issues with debugging. So much better than loading a different set of libraries. Stupid Valve!

a very normal thing for your very functional software to have

What an incredibly weird complaint. I can’t even fathom how one could arrive at this opinion.

At least that’s usually an honest mistake, instead of some managers trying to juice their numbers through dark patterns.

Unless, of course, you’re using Ubuntu. Then it might also be a manager trying to juice their numbers.