This is one of those annoying little problems that is easily picked up by the vet command (https://pkg.go.dev/cmd/vet) when writing Go code. There are, of course, many linters that do the same thing in C, but it's nice to have an authoritative one built in as part of the official Go toolchain, so everyone's code undergoes the same basic checks.

Sick of being poor? Hate the daily grind? Want to be your own boss? Well, you need to start thinking like a winner and check out these awesome side-hustles: looting and loan-sharking!

Haha, sounds about right

Most of them are set by the ad network. It may be unfortunate, but those cookies provide me with a few crumbs to eat!

Freedom from financial stress allows mothers to spend more time bonding with their babies would be the obvious hypothesis. Money definitely gives the poor more freedom to control their own lives.

It's interesting to learn that Git can be used, if you're perversely inclined, as a simple key-value store.

I'm glad to hear it! That won't stop the minority who seek to profit from those technologies pushing them on the rest of us, of course.

Cute title.

Desks by the hour? Well, that sounds like a neoliberal hellscape!

"Pleasure is never as pleasant as we expected it to be and pain is always more painful. The pain in the world always outweighs the pleasure. If you don't believe it, compare the respective feelings of two animals, one of which is eating the other." —Arthur Schopenhauer

This is comparing actual pleasure and pain with expected pleasure and pain. It says nothing about why actual pleasure should be capped but actual pain should not.

The first sentence of the quote does as you say. The second and third sentences make more general claims.

Even those sentences don't argue for a general cap on pleasure but not on pain. In fact, it's hard to come up with any general claim that they do amount to an argument for. The specific example given, one animal eating the other, is obviously asymmetrical, so of course we would expect the respective valences of pleasure and pain to be asymmetrical too. But that's a particular property of that specific example.

Well, I think you'd have to accept the Schopenhauerian worldview (or something similarly pessimistic) in toto, that sentient life involves a surfeit of suffering and conflicting desires that cannot possibly be reconciled, in order to accept the general asymmetry. A short quotation can, of course, only give a glimpse into that: it should be understood as rhetoric more than an analytical chain of reasoning. One animal eating another is absolutely central to the system of nature, since it's how the system sustains itself; the pain of one creature being hunted down and eaten is necessary for the other creature to survive, and yet the pain of dying is obviously greater than the satisfaction of eating.

There are clear cases where "true authorities", however defined, have been wrong about all kinds of subjects, so the fallacy still applies. If you can only justify a belief by appealing to the assumed superior knowledge of experts and specialists, you cannot justify that belief as strongly as someone who can argue from first principles or a clear chain of evidence. The appeal to authority is not necessarily fallacious, but it's more likely to be so.

If you can only justify a belief by appealing to the assumed superior knowledge of experts and specialists because you lack such expertise yourself, you're probably going to be wrong a lot less often when you appeal to authority than when you decide to disagree with them simply because experts are fallible.

That may well be true, depending on the quality of experts and specialists in your society (and assuming they aren't generally serving vested interests that could skew their views), but, epistemologically, you can't prove it without further appeals to authority. So it's experts all the way down!