Guvante

Private window is called out in the article as creating a second entity

To keep the user engaged since "doing nothing" is the default action for people

Intent is fundamental to all criminal cases

The intent of auto play on YouTube is not to defraud ad agencies

Why do you pretend that humans are equivalent to bots?

And if you think skipping ads means the advertising agency gets screwed you are kind of showing ignorance...

Auditing logs is a crazy interpretation of "another person may view it"

But that doesn't align with your phrasing above

Feel free to quote in the article what supports your summary given the article doesn't actually talk about that

In fact it mentions insurance fraud as the cause...

Additionally it certainly wasn't increasing cost but reduced income which is a very different issue

Property taxes are unrelated to income tax

Most of your examples would not be considered harm for another...

Null terminated strings were an intentional compromise, known to be inferior for execution but superior for memory

Null being an "allowed" value for pointers is the mistake e.g. what became nullptr. "Allowed" because garbage values are garbage.

I mean when comparing to machines though the only thing the machines are better at is maybe not getting distracted while humans tend to be better at adapting which is usually important for safety to put it mildly

After all the first Tesla auto drive fatality was literally "that is probably a sign not a trunk"...

Object pooling is just malloc that is a little cheaper and maybe a different failure case when you are full...

If you have a good method to handle the equivalent of OOM then they can make a difference in how the program runs but normally they are just a performance optimization.

Honestly with 64 bit addresses it would be nice if address reuse were eliminated but that requires memory movement of a different kind (probably just as dangerous) or some terrible paging work for the OS...

They didn't even get a good photo of the final product...

The only shot I saw was "while I was writing them" why not show what it looks like while in use?

You paint the sponsors in an unnecessarily negative light here.

They want to fund code they will use and that requires updating versions to be doable for like a million not twenty million.

Everyone loses site of the massive sizes of the codebases involved. When your codebase is measured in millions LoC minor breaks can be devastating.

Minor steps are fine and appreciated but "rip off the bandaid" is better left to alternative projects like Rust.

Replace C++ code with Rust is happening at a glacial pace, basically involving full rewrites of the module replaced and significant work to refactor the surrounding code to support it.

(This is why Rust is focusing heavily on interop right now, if it is easier to integrate more projects can use it)

The problem is updating a decently sized program from one version of a compiler to another can take man months to do and that doesn't typically include intentional breaking changes.

A C++ change that requires updating 1% can be several hundreds of thousands of updates which is on the scale of beyond a man year depending on if you can regex cheat.

The fear the author is glossing over (I wouldn't say ignore they acknowledge there are reasons) is when faced with a man year to update people just don't.

Especially when the most interesting breaking changes don't tend to be synthetic (you can just make modules look like code you couldn't write before after all) but instead be subtle changes in behavior.

That means that you won't necessarily even know all the breakages which is a horrifying concept.