Well done. Though I presume many will be offended by your comparisons I feel as you do. and those who disagree might do well to perform some introspection.

I came from a Java background in 1999 and then discovered JavaScript. I got my first big job with JavaScript in a Ruby shop. Falling in love with Ruby centric talks about OO I applied them all to JavaScript. This was maverick as it wasn’t cool to like JS. Then as my company forced TypeScript at me and I had a chance to compare.

After 27 years programming and 13 dedicated to JavaScript I feel I can say that the advantages we get from TS are not the issues we actually have in production. The protections it offers haven’t (for me) been the issue to problems I’ve ran into. For every type issue that came up we had dynamic equivalents. == means three extra unit tests when === can get away with three less.

I have come to the understanding that much of the dynamic versus static type arguments are all strawmen. There are advantage on both sides and to exclude one over the other requires some kind of blindspot to the other. I can design and code in both confidentially. At home on my own side project I’m going to use JavaScript because I find it fun. At work I am going to use TypeScript because they told me to. If I were to run my own company I might choose a dynamic language but keep a Sauron-esque eye on everything so I can tell developers to produce quality code, documentation, and unit tests. Stop being lazy thinking some fancy compiler with magically make them think they are better coders.

Learning passively like this is not exclusive to in office work. It is culture. Remote work has no requirements to be isolated. Pair programming is just as effective in person as it is remotely in every instance Iâ(TM)ve done it. What hinders that communication is the work culture to shove people into closets and keep then from making those kinds of connections. And that has nothing to do with remote or not and everything to do with bad culture which happens in offices as well.

They removed my favorite item from their menu and will never bring it back. I at only that sandwich once a week. Can some one explain how the hell my order history personalized it off the menu? How can they personalize if they canâ(TM)t even make my personalized favorite sandwich?!

I'm concerned that his life experience and the length of it is in question concerning his daily driver. And also why all the judgments around it? There is no reason someone at any age couldn't enjoy a good game of Elden Ring or be a productive software developer. I hope everyday I am still designing software well into my 80's and beyond.

This make perfect sense to me. In fact Iâ(TM)ve had this as a personal theory ever since the last episode of ST:TNG where they introduced anti-time. For me thinking about the idea that freewill is deferred to the future making the present deterministic. Why am I here in this world right now? Because the events now are required to be where I will be in the future thus that information must travel back in time to ensure that outcome.

All I can offer is my own experiences with pair programming. I tend to dislike people, I fight with most points of views. I am neuro-divergent. I am an introvert according to Myers–Briggs. And every time I have pair programmed it has been the most wonderful experience and some of the best quality work produced. Please don’t discount pair programming just because it didn’t work for you. It works for many including industry leaders and innovators. And it can work for introverts as well. I spend most of my career wishing more people would pair programming with me.

This will never happen. The whole idea behind having such wacky computer based systems is to provide a sense of out of control to voters while giving control to to who has the big bucks. Remember government is not made for or from us. we just think it does. If a voting machine "borks" then there is plausible deniability. A chance for a recount, a way to skew the numbers to the benefit of those in charge. Simply put attempting to make a better system only pushes those who can manipulate that system out. So those who can manipulate a system will never allow something that makes it better. You know the old adage: "What's in it for me?" Ask a politician to make a fairer and more robust voting system and he/she will ask you "What's in it for me?"