nchi3

My workplace is all MacBooks, and a lot of employees have gone over to M1s, and I have not heard of a single case of this happening.

Diminishing returns usually applies if you assume there are no major breakthroughs. Can we assume that there won't be any major breakthroughs in this field?

It's quite obvious that it means "running in the browser engine" rather than "has the technology implemented in a native language". But sure, you're technically correct.

>by using algorithms to automate the most trivial parts of copying someone's work

That's basically what copilot is...?

How is it good for the small local businesses who don't have a choice but shutting down?

What's the reasoning for this?

What didn't work for you? I remember thinking events were surprisingly easy to use with GDScript when I tried the Godot 4 alpha earlier this year.

Storming the Capitol makes you a criminal though, whether you're carrying a gun or not.

Not sure how it works exactly (I'm sure someone else in this thread can fill in!), but that hasn't ever been possible on consoles. Not even the very first Playstation which used CDs would accept copies out of the box.

Because there are scenarios where pattern matching (or instanceof) is the better and more ergonomic thing to use. One obvious example I can think of is event handling.

If anything, this is _not_ something JS devs are asking for, but rather devs using functional languages.

I agree, but I'm not saying anyone should only have friends where they work, but rather that you can have both.

I don't live in the US, and almost all of my friends I meet on my free time are not through work, but I do have colleagues who I consider friends and it makes work a lot more enjoyable. That being said, there's only very few of them who I would be likely to keep in touch with if they or I quit.

Why? You'll spend a huge time of your life working, why is it not worth it to build relationships? You don't have to meet them in your free time to consider them friends.

I think everyone is responsible for doing what they can to contribute towards a better society, not only governments and law makers. That also means you're responsible for the actions you make which does the opposite, whether you get paid for it or not. If someone values having a great home over contributing to a better world, that obviously does tell of that person's values.

Starving is not very "arbitrary" because it means life or death, and you can't expect people to choose death over doing something unethical.

If more people say no to doing unethical things (or show disapproval of those things being done), it'll be harder and more expensive for companies to find people who will do said things. Software engineers working in online gambling make a lot more where I live, which makes that industry less profitable. That's way more effective than waving signs on the street.

Why do you feel that you can't be held accountable for your actions as long as you get paid for it? Do you not want a better world? Or do you think it's up to others to do something about it, and not you?

If the alternative meant starving, I'd agree. That's rarely the case for software developers though, so I think it definitely shows of their values.

Doing it "for the money" is not a free card to do anything unethical when it's easy to say no and get another job.

An extreme example: Was voluntarily being a guard in Auschwitz fine because it was legal? Should you be able to get away with saying "I only did it for this money"?

I don't agree at all. They're very orthogonal concepts, and DDD has very little to do with OO. For an example, see Domain Modeling Made Functional.

Yes, if you do DDD in Java, you should probably follow OO principles. If you end up with a lot of classes "that do nothing", you've probably done something wrong along the way or you've applied it to something very simple where it didn't make sense to do so.