What do you think the point of this post is, then? Comedic hyperbole only works if there is still some truth to it

is everyone here a complete beginner? how do so many people relate to this? as soon as you need to do anything halfway interesting the thing just confidently spews nonsense.

That’s not quite right. In bytecode, lambdas are significantly more efficient than anonymous class instances. So while the lambda implementation is semantically equivalent, characterizing it like you have is reductive and a bit misleading.

Your reply refers to a “junior who is nervous” and “how the sausage is made”, which makes no sense in the context of someone who just has to review code

They’re saying developers dislike having to review other code that’s unfamiliar to them, not having their code reviewed.

IntelliJ finds most uses in my experience unless you’re doing something weird with reflection or similar. And if it’s a public facing API only used by the library’s consumers…– it should be used in tests at the very least! Especially if it’s prone to regressions like the comment suggests

If you read the linked article you will find that exterior cameras feeds are plenty invasive enough.

I don’t think they have interior cameras (although other manufacturers do), but the front and backup camera feeds provide plenty of information as well.

Then there’s also this, if you need any more reason to be concerned.

No usages

Their privacy policy includes a provision that they can use the cameras and GPS to infer things such as sexual orientation, so yeah.

Windows Recall, the screengrabber they were about to release with an unencrypted database as an opt-out feature.

Okay, and they would argue that being progressive is never “right”. You refuse to acknowledge the fundamental flaw in your reasoning, which is that you are assuming a moral baseline that – while I’m sure is reasonable – simply not enough people share for it to be a given.

That is your standard, theirs is different. So how do you decide which is right?

There are unequivocable monsters in our society that should be exterminated

And who gets to decide who falls under that? If you ask former (and possibly future) president Trump, the left is “vermin” and immigrants “poison the blood”; his pick for VP is happy to sign off on progressives being called “unhuman”. Should these groups – in their view unequivocable monsters – be exterminated?

They’ve already started:

I suppose that’s fair, but if you e.g. make a compelling counterpoint and the other person fixates on one small detail to derail the conversation, I think the people you can realistically reach will already be on your side, and anyone who wants to draw some kind of false equivalence between your respective positions wasn’t going to be convinced anyways.

It’s more nuanced than that of course, but in my experience that’s generally the way these things play out as the thread gets longer.

If someone is literally arguing in bad faith, what’s the point in engaging with them? There’s no way to persuade someone who doesn’t actually care about what they’re saying in the first place.

Some Left Winger sees a Right Winger say something they don’t like. The Left Winger can’t counter it

Many right wing positions are very easy to counter with scientific evidence– climate change, crime rates, public health policy, social programs…

So if you think the “Left Winger” can’t counter it… do you not consider evidence-based arguments to be legitimate?

Imagine telling Palestinian civilians “maybe you live, maybe you don’t, it’s not a negotiation”

disgusting

So you’re using the Palestinian genocide as pretense to further an agenda completely unrelated to it, got it. If you actually cared, you would understand how effective this kind of dehumanization is in generating support for the murder of a people.