I always assume I am in normal mode unless I am actively typing. If I stop to think I ESC. Then, when I gave thought, I know what I need to do next.

So for me there isn't really any time of looking at the screen and not knowing. And if there ever was some ambiguity I would reflexively hit ESC to get to a known state.

So, not sure it would bother me. But my editor does give me an indication of whether I am in normal, insert, visual, visual block, or Emacs mode.

Can you point to it? That doesn't sound like "the language forced all this extra baggage on it due to 'safety'" so much as the developers kept adding functions to the function without rethinking if and how they should.

My point was not about the safety of the code, it was about the expressiveness, which is also what the comment I replied to was about. If the parameter has an explicit type (instead of no type, as is normal in Ruby, or `void*`, which is the C equivalent), it forces the developer to consider the design of the function, instead taking the path of least resistance because they're inexperienced/incompetent/a large language model/burnt-out to the point where even the thought of opening the file makes them feel the not-anxiety of burnout/<insert reason here>.

> instead of no type, as is normal in Ruby, or `void`, which is the C equivalent*

“void *” is not the equivalent of “no type” from Ruby. “void *” says “I operate on raw memory”. It says exactly the same thing as “byte *”.

For sure you should generally not write a function that accepts a “void *” and then internally casts it to some concrete pointer type and operates on that type, but the problem there is the internal behavior, not the choice of byte vs void pointer.

Forcing developers to consider and more is harmful though. You're arguing to put all of the forethought upfront, when you have the least context and least understanding of what can go wrong, and carrying that complexity forward rather than starting simple and refactoring over time.

It works for me. I didn't dismiss the first dickover, but did dismiss the second dickover. Scrolled all the way to the bottom smoothly (minus the pause for the second dickover).

They decided to use the Siri branding, so I am going to do as they tell me an associate it with my prior Siri experience. That's a brands sole purpose, to give a buyer an indication of a product before they buy it. (Or in my case, given my experience with the brand, not buy it).

I don't think the Snowden allegations were about employee access to user data.

> Florida has done a lot to minimize home solar for example.

In what way? A quick Google search led me to reasonable rules. Maybe not as lax as I would like (they require it to be connected to the grid and feed power back) but I didn't see anything overly onerous.

> they require it to be connected to the grid and feed power back

how much do you suppose that costs?

$2.60 per W [1]. Seems on the lower side of the average. Maybe you have an actual answer to why FL is so onerous compared to other state, because I haven't found anything to indicate that, yet. My mind is open to hearing the reality but I can't find it.

[1] https://solarcalculatorhq.com/guides/solar-panel-cost-by-reg...

In 2025 they specifically streamline the permitting process because it was prohibitive (HB 683). The legacy of the prior system is isn’t erased because the rules suddenly changed.

Requiring a grid connection doesn’t impact every install equally but it was specifically there to subsidize grid operators at the expense of people who would have happily done without. Further if you are required to connect to the grid then having a system capable of 24/365 independent operation isn’t nearly as cost efficient.

It’s those kinds of issues that slowed adoption. Requiring all contractors to be licensed by Florida on the surface doesn’t seem like an issue, but it increased prices.

In 2026 it’s not necessarily that bad, but 2016 was a meaningfully different story.

> Requiring all contractors to be licensed by Florida on the surface doesn’t seem like an issue, but it increased prices.

Shouldn't that also have 2nd (etc) order effects like reducing house fires and other fuck ups from installations by people who reckon they can do the job correctly, but actually can't?

Also, Florida I believe gives you market rate for electricity you send to the grid, where most give you a reduced rate like 75% or nothing or offset credits. So it's a higher ROI state than most.

Installation costs where I am at are 50% higher, still require a permit, and I get 75% of market rate for my generated power. So, Floridians complaining about their onerous regulations irk me.

The baseline isn’t zero certification requirements. Florida specifically tacked on a Business and Financial Management exam because their goal wasn’t safety.

You can compare various states here: https://irecusa.org/solar-licensing-database/

Yet almost everyone uses dark patterns, which imply they don't think their product is good enough for users to return on their own volition. In fact, I can't think of a single for-profit company that doesn't use at least one dark pattern.

I can think of one such company. Full disclosure: I work for them. It's a successful startup where the entire retention strategy is for our product to be so freaking amazing you'll never want to use anything else. It's been working very well so far. But our product really is freaking amazing.

Since I posted I thought of another one (assuming you don't work for them). But, they really are rare. I see dark patterns everywhere, so I have a visceral reaction to any claims that companies respect users.

> Anyone who makes products want users of our product to keep coming back as though they are addicted, but not actually addicted.

Can you explain the distinction? I am not seeing it. If I keep refreshing a product page to get another dopamine hit, am I addicted or not addicted but appearing so to your metrics?

Everyone likes a beer analogy (almost as much as CS teachers love car analogies!) so I’ll try and do one that applies in the way I _think_ GP intends:

Brewers want people to want beer, and to perhaps puritans, that desire could appear as “addicted”. However, brewers don’t want addicts - liver failure, destitution, death, are all things I doubt a brewer wants to see in their consumer base because you can’t drink if you don’t have a liver, don’t have money, or don’t have life.

Did I, as a child, think my dad was addicted to alcohol because I saw him drink everyday? I did, that’s the appearance it gave. Was he? Not to the clinical point of addiction, technically - he functioned, maintained relationships and a job, and wasn’t more than occasionally emotionally abusive. He fit the type of customer GP seems to talk about - appearing to be addicted but not wholly, truly addicted.

I think the point the gp is making that companies want their users addicted but never should say "addicted" since it has undesirable implications.

Are you addicted to your job? You keep going back every single work day. Does that mean you are addicted? Just because you keep repeating an action doesn't mean you're addicted. It just means it is solving a problem for you (such as providing you with a salary to buy food and pay rent) and does it well.

I am not addicted to my job but my employer would like me to be.

I think apps are a different beast. They (generally, with few exceptions) want their users to be addicted. An addicted user is more likely to come back than one that gets a need met. Once that need is fulfilled, they leave.

If companies actually wanted to fill people's needs they wouldn't use dark patterns like having to call to cancel, spamming them without their consent, switching opt-out choices back with updates, etc. Because they use these dirty tricks, it's hard to believe they have the users best interest in mind. They don't. They just want the line to go up.

Citation Needed (that they actually made everyone equal and it wasn't just a talking point). You may want to read a history book that talks about how Stalin denounced uravnilovka and about the existence of the nomenklatura.

Well, the Party members were more equal.

so... they made a society with a lot of inequality and it fell apart?

There were a multitude of reasons that USSR collapsed, and reasonable people can argue which were more or less important. I don't think it's reasonable to argue it was due to equality (which wasn't even a thing). Inequality certainly was a thing and one of the reasons, in addition to the Afghan War, Perestroika, Glasnost, the coup attempt, the independence movements of member states. I personally think inequality and structured economic collapse was the biggest culprit.

Depends on who 'you' are. I have one package I installed from the AUR and it's from a corporation that just repackages their builds. The problem is always who vets the packages. I trust the Arch team and I trust that one corporation. Also to use the AUR it's a different command, so I can't get surprised by an AUR package. It's not a pacman -Syu is going to pull in a new unknown to me AUR package.