What isn’t associated with cancer? You can probably find a study on most things that have a link to cancer. If not chances are it just has not been studied yet.

The common-knowledge number seems to be about 70% of open source projects are under the GPL and (more importantly) many of the most crucial and successful ones are.

I am calling bullshit on that number. The vast majority of libraries in modern languages are under far more permissive licences, MIT, Apache2, etc. So most libraries for python in pip, rust in crate.io, node in npm, golang modules etc Which makes up a huge amount of software projects. These are languages and libraries used by companies for their own closed source products or tooling for these langauges and a huge amount of success for these is due to their permissive licenses. Companies would not touch GPLed libraries in the same way which would drastically reduce the amount these sources are used and thus their overall contents.

If you only look at the linux desktop you might see more GPLed software, but that is not the majority of opensource software. I don’t know the real percentages of everything, but 70% is a made up number. I would not be surprised if it was 70% being under a permissive license.

deleted by creator

Once had a missing semi colon at the end of a c header file. The compiler kept complaining about the c file and never mentioned the header. Not all errors lead you to the right place.

Though most of the time people just don’t read them. The number of problems I have solve for people by just copy pasting the error they gave me back to them…

Just because your bowser is not caching does not mean something else between you and the server is not caching as well.

This is an absolute terrible post :/ I cannot believe he thinks that is a good argument at all. It basically boils down to:

Here is a new feature modern languages are starting to adopt.

You might thing that is a good thing. Lists various reasonable reasons it might be a good thing.

The question is: Whose job is it to manage that risk? Is it the language’s job? Or is it the programmer’s job?

And then moves on to the next thing in the same pattern. He lists loads of reasonable reasons you might want the feature gives no reasons you would not want it and but says everything in a way to lead you into thinking you are wrong to think you want these new features while his only true arguments are why you do want them…

It makes no sense.