An example of this would be if a music composition
program has an easily-reached maximum song size because
the code monkey who wrote it used a 16-bit variable
instead of a 32-bit one. *While there are sometimes
limitations that cannot be overcome*, the actual code
written and the architecture used when it was written
should have as little effect as possible on what the user
sees and works with when using your software.
(emphasis mine)I think it might be better rephrased as:
1) Don't add unnecessary constraints (or: Don't prioritise efficiency/etc. over the interface).
and
2) A good interface abstracts away technical problems, rather than presenting them in a different form.
At some point, there's not enough money you can lobby with compared to the real world needs and competing lobbies (here: food/nmonsanto etc) and the balance shifts. Also, in non-US countries people might take a more pragmatic approach, giving new tech a leg up.
E.g., China, India might not care so much about the US fertilizer lobby.
I just don't see any other angle to attack nitrogen fixing corn other than to make some sort of GMO boogeyman out of it. It is really amazing the amount of misinformation that is populating the world for the purpose of protecting cash cows.
sidenote Thanks for the downvotes :) apparently my sarcasm hit a nerve.
This would really be amazing. Honest concern... How does the fertilizer industry fight this? There are billions of dollars a year at stake here. Nobody faces billions of lost revenue without a fight.
Your kids will turn out how they are going to turn out. Instinctively, you'll love them and want to keep them alive, so don't worry about that. Other than that, do what you think is right and hope for the best.
Parenting is very much an art, but like all art, there is definitely a science backing it up.