I used to be principled like you, but this man has the potential to cause death and destruction on a scale so unfathomably larger than one person. Would I prefer he face justice? Absolutely. But at some point “not wishing death on someone” flies in the face of the greater good of humanity

Not to mention the law firm they hired advertises anti-union action, so that should tell you whether they can be trusted to be fair to workers…

Imagine you have to choose a health insurance company to be insured with like you choose a credit card (Visa, Mastercard, etc). Many doctors (shops) only accept certain insurance providers (cards) due to fees and other regulations.

The problem described in this article is when your insurance lists doctors that you can go to that will accept your insurance, but most of them have gone out of business or actually don’t accept your particular insurance anymore.

Well yes, I was simplifying because I wanted to address the main (incorrect) criticism by @spartanatreyu@programming.dev. I agree with your comment

Yeah, in Java calling first() on a stream is the same as an early return in a for-loop, where for each element all of the previous stream operations are applied first.

So the stream operation

cars.stream()
    .filter(c -> c.year() < 1977)
    .first()

is equivalent to doing the following imperatively

for (var car : cars) {
    if (car.year() < 1977) return car;
}

Not to mention Kotlin actually supports non-local returns in lambdas under specific circumstances, which allows for even more circumstances to be expressed with functional chaining.

…what? At least with Java Streams or Kotlin Sequences, they absolutely abort early with something like .filter().first().

In solchen Momenten bin ich wieder mal furchtbar dankbar für die DSGVO, die – wenn auch gerne mal absichtlich missverstanden – ein verhältnismäßig sehr solides Grundwerk zum Schutz unserer Daten vor genau solcher unternehmerischer Schikane geschaffen hat.

is that the one that says “fuck the color blind” because if so hey!! that’s not nice

IntelliJ finds most uses in my experience unless you’re doing something weird with reflection or similar. And if it’s a public facing API only used by the library’s consumers…– it should be used in tests at the very least! Especially if it’s prone to regressions like the comment suggests

No usages

This article is very outdated and nowadays you can actually encrypt your entire iCloud and be the only key holder. You will get multiple strong warnings in the UI about the possibility of losing access to your account.

Mmh, I see what you mean. Fair enough!

…what? How do you expect them to demonstrate their intelligence within the span of a single comment, without telling you? This “comeback” doesn’t work if their intelligence constitutes actually relevant context.

Okay, and they would argue that being progressive is never “right”. You refuse to acknowledge the fundamental flaw in your reasoning, which is that you are assuming a moral baseline that – while I’m sure is reasonable – simply not enough people share for it to be a given.

That is your standard, theirs is different. So how do you decide which is right?

There are unequivocable monsters in our society that should be exterminated

And who gets to decide who falls under that? If you ask former (and possibly future) president Trump, the left is “vermin” and immigrants “poison the blood”; his pick for VP is happy to sign off on progressives being called “unhuman”. Should these groups – in their view unequivocable monsters – be exterminated?

Which is what the original commenter already indicated they think as well.

They’ve already started:

The artists I like don’t put out CDs with their music so no.

Apple Music allows you to add arbitrary audio files to your cloud-synced library. I believe it will even generate streaming revenue for the artist if the file is recognized to also be in the catalog of iTunes Match (but I’m not sure on that one).