If you get enough words out I suppose you really can convince yourself that you’ve made a coherent point when all you’ve done is made up different scenarios and missed the point.

You’ve successfully raised my self awareness in that I’m now aware that if someone else makes up a scenario where they explicitly can’t read, they could draw wild conclusions and get offended.

The money itself? Sure. But that’s not what people talk about when they talk about money, they are usually referring to what the money represents, i.e. resources, which were all burnt up and used to create that fire work when they could have gone to something else.

i.e. if we spent some huge proportion of our money on fireworks every year, we would still have the same amount of money on paper in the economy, but absolutely everything else would cost far more. From our actual lived perspective we would be poorer.

Fireworks are a cool spectacle, imagine never seeing a fireworks show.

Completely agree!

Also the money isnt gone, its just changed hands.

Not with this though. A portion of the money has changed hands, the portion that goes to paying workers and investors. Another portion of the money was used to extract, refine, and process something that just burned up and no longer exists.

While money as an abstraction is made up, what it represents, the underlying value of society’s resources, is not, and that is unfortunately finite. So it’s also important to consider opportunity cost. That money could have been spent on other things, when you spend it on something wasteful and unnecessary that means it can’t be spent on more useful or productive things.

All that being said, I still think fireworks are rad and worth it, but they are a waste.

Given their reaction thinking that it was politics to correct, I find the idea the idea that it was an innocent translation issue a little hard to believe.

It’s not my opinion, it’s an objective flaw with the analogy where the comparison doesn’t entirely work. It’s not a big deal, by their nature analogies tend to be imperfect.

I found both sides rather aggressive to be honest. The implication that the use of “he” implies that the author assumes every user is male comes with an implied accusation of some form of misogyny.

No, it didn’t. Go read the PR, it’s extremely polite. I in fact, would challenge you to try and think of a more polite and less accusatory way of bringing up the same issue. I can’t.

Furthermore, the “generic he” has also been acceptable English for centuries, and has only been starting to be phased out in the past few decades.

Yeah, you know what else has only been around for the past “few” decades? Literally every single computer and piece of software ever made, you know what literally none of them do? Refer to their users as “he”.

You want to make it sound like it’s a simple ESL mistake? That’s fine you’re welcome to believe that, but do you know how I respond to translation mistakes when I’m speaking a foreign language? I laugh and say oops, sorry, my mistake I’ll fix that. I don’t say “don’t bring your politics into this”.

I’m sorry but you are making up a fantasy to try and believe that the author wasn’t being an explicit asshole.

The point I’m making is kind of the opposite, unless the contract explicitly states that they’re the same they should not be treated as the same, because at a fundamental level they are not the same thing even if Java wants to treat them as such.

Lmao, bruh. Your inability to read properly is not my problem.

Again, name a time you think you need to use the word “he” in a software instruction or label and I’ll point out how you don’t. Don’t worry, we’ll wait for you to think of one.

And again, I didn’t say they should be fired for making that mistake, I said that’s a junior ass mistake to make. I said they should be fired for being childish, immature, and defensive in the face of valid criticism. You might want to reflect on how childish, immature, and defensive you’re being in response to calling someone else that.

There are a million and one ways to phrase everything in the English language, it’s flexibility is one of its most notable features. There is literally no instruction or label that requires non gender neutral language to be in it unless you’re talking explicitly about gender.

Go ahead and name a label or instruction that you think requires you to use the word he and doesn’t have a gender neutral equivalent.

Didn’t they fly off the handle on someone for politely pointing out that the text shouldn’t use the word “he” and assume that every user is male?

That’s not political, thats flat out unprofessional. I would think it’s a pretty junior mistake if any of my colleagues filed a non-gender neutral PR in the first place, and would flat out fire them if they ever reacted to a review that unprofessionally.

It’s not that great an analogy because the autobahn isn’t still maintained by Nazis.

Saying things aren’t comparable is just shorthand for saying “I’ve stopped thinking or considering this”.

Literally everything is comparable, especially an antifascist and the person they’re covering as.

Why?

Because Java struggles with basic things?

It’s absurd to send that much data on every patch request, to express no more information, but just to appease the shittiness of Java.

I.e. waste a ton of bandwidth sending a ridiculous amount of useless data in every request, all because your backend engineers don’t know how to program for shit.

Gotcha.

Lmao bruh.

You’re a weird mixture of disillusioned and naiive if you think that the narcissist, sexual abuser, traitor, convicted career criminal trying to squat in the seat of power that controls one of the most lethal nuclear arsenal's supporters were going to be swung by rational debate over ideas.

Bruh, there’s a difference between the one or two serializing packages used in each language, and the thousands and thousands and thousands of developers who miscode contracts after that point.

No there isn’t.

Tell me how you partially change an object.

Object User :

{ Name: whatever, age: 0}

Tell me how you change the name without knowing the age. You fundamentally cannot, meaning that you either have to shuttle useless information back and forth constantly so that you can always patch the whole object, or you have to create a useless and unscalable number of endpoints, one for every possible field change.

As others have roundly pointed out, it is asinine to generally assume that undefined and null are the same thing, and no, it flat out it is not possible to design around that, because at a fundamental level those are different statements.

Sure, in a specific scenario where you decide they’re equivalent they are, congratulations. They’re not generally.

Null means I’m telling you it’s null.

Omission means it’s not there and I’m not telling you anything about it.

There is a world of difference between those two statements. It’s the difference between telling someone you’re single or just sitting there and saying nothing.

I’ve never once seen a JSON serializer misjudge null and absent fields, I’ve just seen developers do that.