> always the poor specs

But that is fundamentally what agile is about. It's not about coding faster, it's the recognition that the specs are incomplete or wrong because fundamentally, a lot of customers cannot tell you what the want until they see it. That's why "build something simple and iterate on it" works. Regardless of how good your spec is, once the coding is done the customer is going to realise that that's not what they actually wanted.

This is a weird backwards logic to justify terrible analysis

No this is literally in the agile manifesto. It's not logic at all, it's the written word of what agile is.

What that means is that Agile and agile are not the same thing. Most companies practice Agile, very few are agile.

This shows, once more, that humans are bad with modes. You have two copies of the repo, one in a transaction and one not in a transaction.

The problem is that the thing you use to build the transaction can also be used to directly manipulate the DB. A better API design would be to separate those two things.

Interestingly, modal editing comes very natural to us. It enters muscle memory quite well.

Because that's what they're seeing? If only a small fraction of submissions can use the tool correctly, that's on the tool.

1 and 2 are really only an issue if you vibe code. There's no reason to expect properly reviewed AI assisted code to be any worse than human written code. In fact, in my experience, using LLMs to do a code review is a great asset - of used in addition to human review

So, that would make this GNU/Windows

They could brand it as “New Windows”

Out with the old, in with the GNU.

Remember when OpenAI was about not-for-profit AI development for the betterment of humanity?

Disabled does not mean you need a caregiver

I think you are confusing rings with discs. Larry Niven is the one doing the spinning

My apologies. You are correct indeed.

> There is also a parallel legal reality - that people have the right to free speech.

The right to free speech only means you can't be prosecuted for what you say. It does not compel any private entity to distribute everything that you want to say.

> The right to free speech only means you can't be prosecuted for what you say.

It is a much broader protection against government retaliation than just "cannot be prosecuted", but it is a protection against the government, and it includes protection against being forced to endorse and relay others' speech. Compelled speech is the opposite of free speech.

I don't think they should be able to claim "safe harbor" protection (or am I getting that confused with common carrier?) and then get to use censorship however they like. The spirit of safe harbor is that "we're not responsible for what random people post on here". It doesn't seem logically consistent to claim this legal protection but then curtail the content to anyone's personal sensitivities.

Section 230(c)(2)(a) is pretty explicit in allowing moderation.

Just because they are not legally liable for what users post, Congress did not want to prevent platforms from going beyond their minimal legal requirements if they so chose.

The alternative us a law that says "It is unreasonable for us to expect you to perfectly police your users; but we will hold you liable for imperfectly doing so".

Just curious: do you believe in net neutrality? (I think that's the cause of my conflation with "common carrier"). But if censorship is a valid reason to deny service, why can't charter or AT&T say "we dont like what you're sending over our wires, so we're blocking or throttling you" ?

Is it merely the fact that encryption blocks the carrier from knowing what the line is used for? Or said another way, should AT&T have the right to terminate a user's service if they were certain a user was posting, say, white supremacy?

Those are your basic rights: You entered into a contract with the airline, and the airline failed to deliver. Of course you get your money back if the alternative solution is not satisfactory - whether or not the ticket was refundable doesn't even enter into it, as it was the airline that failed to deliver in the first place. That's not stellar service, that's just fulfilling their legal obligations.

I am not sure which airline represent your average experience; but in my experience, almost all airlines will fight to "your death" not to give you anything back. In the times they do (especially European), it's because there is a law that requires them to.

What happened to the OP is, therefore, unusual.

I think the point being made: It was refunded very quickly and without hassle. Other, less scrupulous / ethnical airlines were try more tactics to redirect to worse flight or delay refund (if at all -- "oh, it was a lost in our system").