bonus points if you’re using a statically typed language but the library uses extensive metaprogramming seemingly for the sole purpose of hiding what types you actually need

to be even more pedantic, if we follow the relevant official RFCs for http (formerly 2616, but now 7230-7235 which have relevant changes), a 403 can substitute for a 401, but a 401 has specific requirements:

The server generating a 401 response MUST send a WWW-Authenticate header field (Section 4.1) containing at least one challenge applicable to the target resource.

(the old 2616 said 403 must not respond with a request for authentication but the new versions don’t seem to mention that)

but sometimes “👍🏽”.reverse() == “🏽👍”

the thing where it actually helps is if you’re “one word speed reading” (eg. http://onewordreader.com/). Then it’s easier to rapidly focus your eyes on each word, without having to follow a rigid timer. But if you’re reading normally it probably doesn’t help

A key part of visual design is knowing that the users don’t know what’s best for themselves. They usually stop complaining after 3 months which is proof that you are correct and they are wrong!

(sarcasm rate: 1 - ε)

assuming you have never used anything except apt commands to change the state of your system. (and are fine with doings superfluous changes eg. apt install foo && apt remove foo)

90% of them were so bored

the remaining 10% however

it’s replicable and “atomic”, which for a well-designed modern package manager shouldn’t be that noticable of a difference, but when it’s applied to an operating system a la nixos, you can (at least in theory) copy your centralized exact configuration to another computer and get an OS that behaves exactly the same and has all the same packages. And backup the system state with only a few dozen kilobytes of config files instead of having to backup the entire hard drive (well, assuming the online infrastructure needed to build it in the first place continues to work as expected), and probably rollback a bad change much easier

are you sure there isn’t small print somewhere saying you forfeit your eternal soul to larry ellison?

The same comment touches on several topics, replying to 2 different people. These two statements being in the same comment is not evidence of them being about the same thing, and if the author expected readers to get that from it, it is absolutely the author’s fault if their words got misinterpreted.

And in the next paragraph:

We importantly chose not to call anyone out by name in the there because our expectations aren’t about one person. All of us need to be aware of what is and isn’t okay and a lot of people were involved in the problematic threads, even if Tim, as self-identified here, was one big part

Again referring to multiple people.

It’s clearly referring to people in the plural. If the person on the council most vocally defending the council’s decision to suspend can’t say it in a reasonably straightforward manner, the simpler explanation is that that is not what they are talking about.

If you read it carefully, Smith doesn’t make any claim that anyone complained about Peter’s conduct. It’s speaking in general terms about the behavior of unnamed persons.

half of them just from the description are very obvious “we couldn’t get enough examples of bad behavior on him so we had a brainstorming session of imaginary slights”