> If laypeople can assemble projects on GitHub and invite similarly unskilled friends to participate, who’s being hurt?
The users who assume the authors are competent and aren't making stupid/dangerous security mistakes. I think for a while you could rely on the assumption that people who released software knew what they were doing... and that if they didn't, they'd at least have the sense to keep their half-arsed experiments to themselves.
I've tried the new design (using flags in about:config) and none of my plugins broke. I'm running Facebook Container, Midnight Lizard, No Thanks, a Medium extension and uBlock Origin.
Have you actually tried it yourself? If not, why post a rather shallow dismissal?
They don't care. Words are just a means to an end, a compliance tool that doesn't have to make any sense as long as it works on enough people, and enough people are willing to pat them on the head for repeating them. You're not talking to people who deal in principles, which is also why they're eerily unmoved by even the most glaring double-standards.
Some of them could be badly designed. Mine has a part that hooks over the top of the door-frame, along with a bar that sits against the door frame on the other side... so the more weight you have on it, the more solidly it sits. I like that my body weight isn't hanging from a little screw in the door frame (which I suspect is a failure point).
From what I've seen in those videos, most of the time people are screwing around, swinging out of them and trying to do tricks... if you're doing proper form when the bar breaks, you should probably be landing on your feet anyway?
"Well written" is hard to demonstrate, because (aside from being somewhat subjective) it's something that might only play itself out over a long period. For example, can you take one feature and completely remove it, without creating a nightmare for yourself? Can you add a new feature without needing to re-write and rearrange a million other things? And then on the opposite end of the spectrum, is everything so de-coupled that it adds needless structural complexity?
I think my biggest lesson as a programmer was returning to large projects I hadn't touched in a few months, needing to implement big changes. Nothing else has developed my sense of where, when, and how to separate concerns.
I'd recommend toying around with "design patterns", which forces you to think about different approaches. But I might be answering this at a different scale than you're asking. Personally I've found my biggest challenges have been structural... rather than coming up with tight little algorithms for things.
> I don't know why there's such a taboo over saying some people are more intelligent than others.
Makes it easier to seed resentment and division. There's a notable cohort of ideologically-possessed individuals whose mission in life seems to be flatly denying the existence of meritocracy. If everyone is as smart as the smartest people in the world (and we'll repeat this until it's accepted as true), then some injustice logically must be taking place. Our ideology just so happens to have a solution to address this, so you should give us power. It's a pattern that's been playing out for a while now.
The users who assume the authors are competent and aren't making stupid/dangerous security mistakes. I think for a while you could rely on the assumption that people who released software knew what they were doing... and that if they didn't, they'd at least have the sense to keep their half-arsed experiments to themselves.