You're setting up a binary between advanced/primitive; I would hesitate to speculate that they would conform to our ideas of these concepts.
The other thing to consider is, we might perceive some actions as violence, while the other species may not view it at violence at all. We may simply be materials that can be reallocated for other purposes, just like how humans often view living things in our environment.
On a higher level, software development is a process of converting unknowns to knowns. We can't estimate or act upon what we don't know; as we uncover details, we can more accurately gauge level of effort and what the best solution is for the problem at hand.
If they're nontechnical, they may not care about how it's done at all, but they will care about timelines. They may have agreements with others that depend on the product, or may have stakeholders they need to communicate with.
As developers we usually focus on our direct communication with the business owner, but I think it's helpful to imagine the second order communications that will result from how we communicate progress on our technical solutions.
For example, if we convey confidence to get a certain piece done by x date, the founder may in turn pass on that confidence to shareholders. But if we later backtrack after realizing that it will be a bigger lift than expected, the founder may have to walk back those expectations.
> How is being “leaky” in any way bad or even good?
Information-gathering is a common early step in any attack against a system; knowing the language & libraries involved (especially their versions) allows you to search for any existing CVEs that apply.
> Are you advocating “security by obscurity”?
I don't think OP was implying that security by obscurity alone is sufficient, just that it's unwise to advertise information that's not relevant to end users, that could help would-be attackers.
I know this is just an example, but is this an accurate representation of what these arguments are like?
> Western societies are structured on Enlightenment-era philosophy that fundamentally does not value Black people as people, and defines them as slaves. Even though documents like the Constitution have been amended to end slavery, it created a society that is rotten to the core, and the only way to fix it is to burn down civil society.
I found this particular one strange because it sounds like essentialism, which is both a hallmark of Western philosophy and a common target of critiques by critical theorists and poststructuralists.
There's not any one sentence that represents what Kritiks on the whole are like, because they can literally be about anything. This author is cherry-picking stuff to rile up right-wingers about schools indoctrinating kids.
In fact, this sentence wouldn't really work as the basis of a Kritik in most cases, because it's explicitly arguing that those things are true in the status quo (so nothing that the Aff plan would do specifically caused that, which means it loses on "uniqueness"; i.e. it's not the Aff's fault, it's just how the world is.)
As a K-Aff, they would probably be pushing for some kind of well-tread Alt (alternative action) like De-col. Afro-pessimism is something that all experienced policy debaters are familiar with, and familiar with answering.
I wonder if the speed/frequency of discourse has soured some of the potentially good ideas that critical theory can put forth.
In college I had a deep interest in critical theory, but I recall most of my time with it spent simply thinking: reflecting on the ideas and critiquing them myself. We didn't exactly debate the ideas, either - it was more akin to collaborative analysis of their strengths and weaknesses.
As you suggest, I think allowing this ebb and flow made the experience a more fruitful one.
When I used Python for Advent of Code a few years ago, I found that Python makes unit testing fun.
Coming from .NET 6 development, I'll do what I need to do when it comes to fleshing out unit tests, but the brevity of Python unit tests was real pleasant to work with.
To me, docker compose is simply a more readable way of running docker commands; anything you can do with the docker cli, you can run as a docker compose file.
Just like how a shell script is easier to manage than stringing lots of commands in the terminal, defining services in yaml is easier to manage than adding a million flags to your docker commands.
Of course at a certain point you may need further abstractions, but I agree with you that these should only be used if they're actually needed.
The other thing to consider is, we might perceive some actions as violence, while the other species may not view it at violence at all. We may simply be materials that can be reallocated for other purposes, just like how humans often view living things in our environment.