I mourn that the scrollbar has been hunted to extinction, even on windows 11 desktop. Windows explorer slowly starts to behave like a web page app. If you enable many columns in the explorer file view, this design is bonkers: To navigate those columns, you need the horisontal scrollbar. But modern design lunacy dictates that this scrollbar must be INVISIBLE. So you have to guess where it should be, and wave your mouse around in that area, until the windows 11 geniuses decide to fade in and reveal that - oh My!, THERE WAS A SCROLL BAR THERE ALL ALONG. So, now naive you might think "OK, we both agree there is a scrollbar there now, so maybe we can keep it in view?" NOOOOHHH! as soon as you have used it to find your new columns, it must of course disappear again, so you must once again wave around your mouse in its general direction, next time you need it :-(.

A similar insanity happens with window borders in general, because heyaah, wow, minimalism is cool. So when you need to resize a window or, god forbid, drag it by its title bar(), that too is minimized into unrecognisability. To be clear, the problem here is, that you can't tell where window A ends and window B begins, because of design minimalism, so it is simply hard to discern where the drag-border is.

(

) which leads me to window title-bar anorexia: It has also become oh so popular to minimize and compact the windows title bar, so that there is no area left where your mouse can grab the window to drag it. Web browsers, among many other apps, are guilty of this. The intent behind is to avoid the "double windows top", where you have first the title bar, then the menu below that (they have been collapsed into one); but apparently no one thought about "but how can users then drag their windows?".. I guess we are not supposed to, because the app is supposed to be full-screen maxxed, on the tablet we are drooling on. Or if there is another way, I, director Skinner and Homer's dad did not get the memo.

> The whole “just read the code carefully and you’ll find bugs” thing works fine on a 500-line rope implementation. Try that on a million-line distributed system with 15 years of history and a dozen half-baked abstractions layered on top of each other. You won’t build a neat mental model, you’ll get lost in indirection.

Yes, yes, why bother reading your code at all? After all, eventually 15 years will pass whether you do anything or not!

I think if you read it while it's 500 lines, you'll see a way to make it 400. Maybe 100 lines. Maybe shorter. As this happens you get more and more confident that these 50 lines are in fact correct, and they do everything that 500 lines you started with do, and you'll stop touching it.

Then, you've got only 1,5m lines of code after 15 years, and it's all code that works: that you don't have to touch. Isn't that great?

Comparing that to the 15m lines of code that doesn't work, that nobody read, just helps make the case for reading.

> What actually prevents bugs at scale is boring stuff: type systems, invariant checks, automated property testing, and code reviews that focus on contracts instead of line-by-line navel gazing.

Nonsense. The most widely-deployed software with the lowest bug-count is written in C. Type systems could not have done anything to improve that.

> sure, but treating it as some kind of superpower is survivorship bias

That's the kind of bias we want: Programs that run for 15 years without changing are the ones we think are probably correct. Programs that run for 15 years with lots of people trying to poke at them are ones we can have even more confidence in.

This seems really simple no? Like just look at the subway map?

    Aug 1 - 4, Fri 9:45 PM to Mon 5:00 AM 

It seemingly does. It's part of their enterprise offering, which they can use to upsell other things like GDocs and company GDrive. GDocs is also notoriously bad with search. As bad as it is, it's still the best out there that most people are familiar with.

> That said, asking questions is not inherently virtuous. Sometimes people are just hammering away, and I feel like they are trying to trip me up, or measuring me against their standards.

And later.

> “When people are under too much pressure or stress, their defenses go up, and this makes curiosity a challenge,” she said. “Anxiety can easily look like egocentrism.”

Asking questions is a minefield. I am sure there are people who lack curiosity, but I am also sure there are many people that think: " Why go into that minefield on my own initiative when my conversation partner is happy to lead me through?"

It's not levying war against the United States. I don't know what the legal definition of Enemies is, but I would imagine it would involve a declaration of war.

The Korean war was never formally resolved, but the US hasn't declared war since WWII.

There's also no indication of adherence here.

Doing things that benefit a country and a leader that your government officically doesn't care for can be all shades of prohibited and illegal, but it's not treason.

Six months ago I would have endorsed wide-scale deportations, but after seeing the consequences—families swept into jails, plain-clothes officers ambushing people on their way to work or school, and communities living in constant fear—it’s clear that indiscriminate removals are neither practical nor just. This approach diverts resources from pursuing violent offenders, erodes faith in the rule of law, and forces the whole country toward a “papers-please” surveillance culture, where everyone must carry ever-stricter IDs. Watching longtime neighbors dragged off for minor infractions, the policy feels capricious, and that perception of unfairness only accelerates the broader corrosion of civil liberties. A sound path must still secure the border, yet focus enforcement on genuine threats and offer law-abiding residents a transparent route to legal status, so safety is preserved without sacrificing the freedoms.