Can you imagine being the person that hit that button today? Jesus.

Exactly, the modern R base wants cruelty from their representatives more than anything.

It's finally an opinionated distro I agree with. Of course you can get anything to look like anything but I just like how they picked a path and went so far down it to make their own unique out-of-the-box experience.

This is three strikes and they're blocked for this fuckin guy.

Our military presence in the Middle East is a gigantic oil subsidy. Who does he think it is that is escorting oil tankers lol.

How's this for an over simplification: we should find the guy who got the big bag of money that started the whole thing open that bag.

I think they actively want WW3 so they can play out their end-times-left-behind fantasies they've been nursing for the last 20 years. What are all their ammo hoards for if they don't get to use them?

Does the article mention the stability problems with the 7000 series? https://community.amd.com/t5/graphics-cards/is-amd-going-to-acknowledge-black-screen-crashes-on-7000-series/m-p/650861

No. Wishing these journo ding dongs would help us make noise about this issue. I should have heeded my friend's warnings about AMD product stability.

They're going to be pissed when they find out how many "save the children" bills Republicans sponsor.

so cringe

Never fails to get family members crying.

There are some infamous cases of OOP abuse in the 7 digit LOC embedded system codebase I work in. I have known several developers that created these sorts of overly-engineered inheritance hierarchies seemingly just for their own sake. It's awful, and it's even worse when the original author leaves the company and leaves these sorts of unmaintainable blocs in our applications.

But I think there are definitely places where OOP is not only beneficial but just the correct solution for a part of the application. GUI for instance--all the various widget types and how they plug in to the UI system to handle mouse events and get drawn in the correct Z-order--it's very intuitive. Of course you will find a subclass of a subclass of a subclass of Button every once in a while, and in these cases I do look for opportunities to use composition over inheritance.

By the way - can we talk about the author's weird definition of composition? I've always defined composition as a class with a "has-a" relationship with other classes. But this author still defines it as classes with a "is-a" relationship to other classes, or in this case a single "generation" of inheritance. That seems bizarre to me, especially when they give this example:

In composition, this is a simple task: go to Dog class, add getTreat call in between eating and pooping. Done. 💪

And yet, their example of a Dog class following composition literally inherits from the Animal interface and does not have a point in which Dog can, internally, insert this getTreat() call:

class Dog implements Animal { doStuff() { consumeEnergy() println("woof") rest() } }

Lol... anyway, I like the sentiment of the article but I lean much farther toward just picking the correct tool for the job. Inheritance can still be the right solution in many cases and blaming a paradigm for code readability problems doesn't seem as apt as, say, realizing that even in codebases where every commit has to be reviewed, at the end of the day you still have to ship product and there is never time to keep all code in perfect order, especially in large legacy systems*.

• note this may not apply to some open source projects or other projects where True Idealism can be/is exercised