That's not a similar situation in the least. Comparing calling out and calling for the removal of bad cops to holding the thin blue line ignores any bit of context there is.
No, please do. Explain to users why you need that, and why you feel you are important enough to bypass and ignore all of the existing design guidelines and patterns of whatever OS I'm running on. And why you feel you have to use up all of my CPU and memory to do so.
For the last time, "existing design guidelines and patterns" is a myth. Even Apple only really hits that (and barely) on iOS; MacOS UI consistency is a mess.
Furthermore, most people do not care about this, and the value of marketing with a sleek design vastly outweighs any benefit of conforming to system components UI.
If literally every Electron app fixed memory issues and correctly placed OK/Cancel dialog buttons, I'd be fine with it for the rest of my life - and I write native code for a living. ;P
I'm not going to bother listing out the litany of odd UI issues present in macOS, because you can Google it and find this within a few seconds. It comes up every. single. macOS. release.
Nobody cares about learning a new UI because most of the tools they use are webapps nowadays anyway, which require this.
The value isn't yours, if that wasn't apparent. For the vast majority of people who use apps with easier to implement design/UI/UX features, it's easier for them to get things done. These apps wouldn't have caught on without that.
And lastly, you've opted to be incredibly pedantic in an attempt to be snarky (I'm guessing, otherwise I've no clue why you'd do this). Electron is more than memory issues and this isn't even a debate.
See, for a website, that's fine. But not for an application. Why would I not want an application that fits in well with my chosen OS, and follows the design guidelines and patterns of that OS?
I wish them the best of luck, but I don't think it's going to happen, because one of the big reasons Electron is popular is because web-dev people don't want to learn other languages.
I'd love to learn other languages and stacks! It's just that, often, it isn't a worthy use of my time. All that time used into learning C++ and Qt would be better used in making and improving my software.
This is even more impactful when hiring people. I'm building a small team that has to handle Web development, mobile apps, and someday a desktop app. The less different skills I need for all of this, the more cost-effective it will be.
Personally, I'd rather have ultra-fast, spartan-looking, as-efficient-as-possible apps. If I could choose just by heart, I'd code in Lisp, and probably I wouldn't even make GUIs and just make CLI apps. Sadly, programming is not only a hobby and I have to consider my business needs before my technical preferences.
Engineering isn't about picking the best, most perfect technologies, but about handling trade-offs. Many are using web tecnologies because of the fads, and some out of lazyness, but many (i'd guess most) are doing it because it's worth it.
"I'd love to learn other languages and stacks! It's just that, often, it isn't a worthy use of my time. All that time used into learning C++ and Qt would be better used in making and improving my software."
This line of thinking, that it's not worth your time to learn tools that would improve your software, and make it less resource intensive, is a large reason for that trope.
"Many are using web tecnologies because of the fads, and some out of lazyness, but many (i'd guess most) are doing it because it's worth it."
I can't agree with this, mainly because, it's not worth it. It doesn't improve the software in any way; if anything, it makes it worse.
To be quite frank, any amount of marketing is over marketing for this. I shouldn't have to pay a single cent to have that kind of monitoring; it is my data that they are using. I should be able to look at and correct the data at any time, with no cost whatsoever.
Most things already are. But there are many things that do need to be a federal concern, because a state does not exist in a vacuum, nor is it a (metaphorical) island. Things like the environment and pollution, for instance, need to have a federal component. One state may decide to relax environmental protections so that they can encourage factories and jobs. However, that pollution does not limit itself to the people that decided it. People outside that area, in other states that do have environmental regulations, will also be affected.
> But there are many things that do need to be a federal concern
I completely agree! Most of them are already explicitly listed as federal concerns, in the Constitution; we should amend it to include environmental concerns for the exact reason you note.
But I see no reason why e.g. education should be a federal concern. Let the states do as they will.
Because there need to be national standards for education. The citizens of a state do not exist in a vacuum, and being taught Creationism instead of actual science is going to do great harm to those kids ability to get jobs, which is going to have an impact on many sectors of the economy.
The Congress has the Constitutional Responsibility to act as a check on the Executive Branch, through several means, up to and including impeachment of the Executive. Trump has done several things this past year alone that would have led to censure or impeachment had they been done by past Presidents. If Congress refuses to fulfill its duty, then they deserve the anger they are receiving.
I agree that any responsible, sane congress would have impeached Trump several iterations of "new groundbreaking violation of democratic norms" ago. (And to be quite clear, this rests entirely at the feet of the current majority party: a democratic-led congress would have acted long ago.)
But that doesn't have anything to do with the comment I was responding to.
What we're discussing here is an action by a Trump appointee, who was not confirmed by the senate (Mulvaney is an "acting" head). The blame for that action lies with Trump and with Mulvaney. It does not lie with the congress that failed to prevent it.
The grandparent argument appears to boil down to "Trump & team did evil. Congress failed to prevent them from getting away with it. Therefore direct your anger toward congress." That's just an inch or two from complete nonsense.
Eh, I feel one can be just as angry/outraged at Trump & Team as they can be at Congress for letting them get away with it.
That, and given the upcoming midterm elections, I feel I have more influence on Congress (or at least my Congressional delegation) than I do on Trump & Friends.
So how would less regulation around data security (which is the thing that this is about) prevent another Equifax? Remember, you and I are not Equifax's customers, so we have no ability to choose anything in this scenario.
Equifax took care of this possibility by taking advantage of the freedom they had to place binding arbitration clauses in their customer agreements.
Unless you're independently wealthy, taking Equifax on by yourself in court is a non-starter. This, of course, was the point of adding these clauses in the first place.
I don't buy that, mainly because that only works if I can afford to sue those doing wrong. Most people cannot. Hence, why the government is there: to uphold these laws, and use everyone's collective resources to do that.
1) Sophisticated corporations have developed legal loopholes to eliminate their vulnerability to class actions. Wells Fargo used this tactic to have the lawsuits about the fraudulent accounts it created dismissed [1]. Equifax may or may not be able to benefit from similar provisions (they had one on their website terms of use, which their twitter said didn't apply to the breach as they were getting PR flak for it).
In a move you doubtless approve of, the regulation that would have restored consumer access to the legal system was repealed [2].
2) Money damages in a class action lawsuits aren't going to really make the victims of the Equifax breach whole. Valuing your leaked personal data is very difficult, as is proving that an identity theft was performed with information leaked from a particular source, and both of these will work in Equifax's favor in court. The data has been leaked, and a lawsuit isn't going to put it back into a bottle, nor is it likely to financially chastise Equifax adequately.
Are you going to start lobby to make it illegal for companies to put anti-class action clauses in their ToS? Are you going to lobby to make it illegal for a company to force mandatory binding arbitration on their customers? If not, then you're just trying to have your cake and eat it too. You're trying to keep the government from punishing wrongdoing, and trying to keep people from the very few remedies they have.
You're missing the point. It doesn't matter what the subject is. If it helps, think of a different area where right-leaning government employees could resist government. (I can't think of one off the top of my head)
The point is: rogue government employees should not be exerting their concept of what it morally right in direct conflict with leaders elected by the people.
It is inherently undemocratic. If you want an unelected oligarchy of technocrats, that's something to debate the merits of. But, anyone who values democracy should be appalled by an unelected bureaucrat setting policy against the will of the people.
