Hello Hotel

I agree. It leads to problems of its own.

deleted by creator

It’s a programing term that comes from the phrase “shooting yourself in the foot”. Come to think about it, a loaded gun is a great example of safety mechinisms.

Theres two ways of looking at safe systems,

• People are idiots and will get themselves hurt. The machine should prevent them to keep them safe at all costs.

Or

• without guardrails, people are vulnerable idiots and I am too. Let the machine prevent them until they understand and accept the risk.

As memtioned elsewhere in the thread, political pressure prevents implementation of safe systems. I absolutely love safeguards and being safe because foot guns are nasty. (Its why Rust is a great language.) but I will fight against things clearly created under the former philosophy because it locks people out of their own property. Because sometimes the “safety” is an excuse for controlling behavor.

deleted by creator

you don’t have to use it.

On windows, “its optional” means somthing diffrent than on linux.

On linux a feature like this is just a command or a toggle switch in the settings.

Its admittedly a neat concept, I use OBS for this verry reason, to capture moments where I didnt think to press “record” beforehand. An (unprivlaged, no internet access) userland foreground app with “start/stop/delete past hour” buttons. All from the easy to understand from a glance taskbar icon.

Sadly, we only got a few of these safety features later on because like software, people will also refuse to buy a car without seatbelts or working breaks.

People are saying “no!” now so they dont have to say no later when its much harder to say no (when its in your home, on your pc). Microsoft plugs their ears when their customers say “it’s unsafe” and “no means no” because they want you to partake in this transaction with them reguardless of if you do.

non existent options for CLI tools

When writing vanila javascript, it writes loke a newbie. Anything remotely objscure and it will make things up.

deleted by creator

Oh. so you are saying they use need to use copyright enforcement tools irreguardless of if it is a valid takedown according to copyright law. NOT that they are trying to invent a legal reason.

so if Im getting this correct, because zuckerburg runs ads, you can claim the usage is always commercial therefore always subject to copyright control. if you want nudity taken down, you must use (and in the process normalize) this easly abusable loophole that contains absolutely no safeguards.

when microsoft feels threatened by the recycling community being noticed, they add more technical constraints. Chromebooks are the gold standard for an intentionally non recyclable machine, neck and neck with apple.

yup, its an “oh, you concider it garbage? oh well, more for me then!” situation.