Simpler times

We all will. Ashes to ashes.

So buying a shirt and having it embroidered elsewhere is assholery? Why should Patagonia have control of merchandise after they sell it?

Makes me want to have some Patagonia stuff altered on principle...

Allegedly it was to keep people from trashing the garments when they left the company. I have a few nice jackets I really don't wear because I don't represent that organization, and they are way less valuable at thrift.

The rules are if you want to get bulk discounts from Patagonia, you're right that you can just buy the clothes and do whatever to them, you just pay retail.

The assholery aspect is more personal to me I think. I like that even though they're not exactly a grassroots cottage gear maker anymore, that Patagucci actually enable and encourage secondhand use via their worn gear and repair programs and messaging. I try to give space to people and orgs who are trying to do things thoughtfully, so if someone goes out of their way knowingly to disrespect that thoughtfulness, yeah I find that distasteful.

"private function" doesn't mean "you can't know about this", it means "you shouldn't rely on this as a stable interface to my code".

Just because you can use the information you have to call a given function, doesn't mean you aren't violating an interface.

my point was that f() had been defined static then you can't access it from outside the translation unit it is defined in - in other words, it is "private". i'm afraid i'm unclear what your point is.

Both points are related and matter.

For most purposes, not being able to access something, and being able to access something not officially in an interface, where doing so introduces an unpredictable breaking dependency, the practical result is the same: You can't (actually/sensibly) do it.

Then why not define "something" as static, which makes the compiler and linker guarantee that you can't do it?

What if I want to internally access it from multiple compilation units, but not necessarily encourage downstream users from using it? This is really common.

`static inline` is definitely not private. See https://github.com/axboe/liburing/blob/master/src/include/li... , for a practical example.

It's going to become private, but its part of your side of the interface, not of the other side. The ABI boundary is between that `static inline` function and the library, not between that function and your code.

Migration costs are a thing

So are the costs of downtime.

No, but it has momentum left over from when it was much better. The Microsoft downslide will continue untill there's no one left

Isn't the inverse true though? it's not as if nobody's watching youtube, it's just that different videos are popular there.

It's not just different videos, Tiktok is much better at recommending videos by very small creators and people with no followers. On Instagram or Facebook if you don't already have a large following you most likely wont get any views at all no matter how well your video matches the platform. YouTube often pushes big creators that already made it big while Tiktok allows me to discover new and niche ones.

Brand new projects have a way of turning into legacy codebases

lol reminds me of the new-age bullshit generator https://sebpearce.com/bullshit/

why can't they?

because they're only for video files?