So you just have to overcome the general laziness of human beings and the network effects that entrench the Youtube platform as a basic monopoly. That's crap. Government exists for this reason. Break up youtube.

This is a good summary of how they killed themselves. They failed to realize that in their panic over new users having bent feels when someone pointed out that their question was nearly unanswerable, vague mess, and tried to get them to be more specific, they went after the people who were actually trying to help. This destroyed the willingness of people (tens of thousands of them, including me) to participate.

It was good but bringing it back is impossible. The patient is dead, you canâ(TM)t just roll the feature back out now.

> Why should I write setter methods Donâ(TM)t all the IDEs automate this stuff?

Perfect summary. Imperfect implementation which solves a problem C++ leaves as impossible to solve, making C++ codebases awful at runtime, and Java harder to live with at compile time.

Checked Exceptions are every bit as painful as you state. But they are also sensible coming from the Java âoefill the holes in C++â thinking patterns. What gets raised where is nearly impossible to determine statically since any function called at any level can raise anything. And so either you solve that problem the Java way and create a nasty nasty mess that requires your IDE to help you code your way out of it, or you ignore the problem and let the IDE simply detect what can be raised, so you can decide if you want to catch it. I personally hate Java coding because of all the ceremony and without checked exceptions there are still 20 other laborious and over-engineered things to worry about. Then thereâ(TM)s the horrors of Spring.

Here, Iâ(TM)m going to hand you money for a piece of paper which I will give to someone else who will give me a job where I pretend to do work, and they give me money. In order to prove that I have earned this piece of paper that I will give to someone else so they give money, I will have to do work to prove I know stuff which is what the paper says on it. But instead of learning stuff Iâ(TM)ll use a computer to generate all my work for me, and then having used the AI to do my coursework, Iâ(TM)ll also be prepared for when the people who hire me get me to do stuff which I will also do with AI, until two weeks later when they figure out they can fire me and just ask the AI to do this stuff for them. Anyone wanna hire a cheater?

If the area that was being tested was truly important to even 1% of Linux installs, perhaps this would be good. Having unit tests specific to a hardware device that most systems don't use, is of absolutely no utility for finding bugs. Oh noes this module that less than 0.1% of users will ever know exists has a subtle issue. Oh noes oh noes.

We need electricians because apparently AI can't assemble AI datacenters (yet).

Are you a MAGAt? Sound like one. Moronic.

If he thinks itâ(TM)s a good idea, itâ(TM)s a bad idea.

Why write apps when this OS can not even use all your memory. Most PCs now have 32 gb of RAM, and this can only use 4 GB of that RAM. Of course since there are almost no apps for this OS, you probably will not ever miss the other 28 gb of RAM in your PC that sits there invisible to OS/2

Come on I was an OS/2 developer and it was leading edge in 1992, but itâ(TM)s sad now.

Nothing new. Not the first time.

Yep. The irony.