And yet, those "diaries" are an incredibly effective way to control the public narrative.

It’s more complicated:

https://protobuf.dev/programming-guides/enum/

>> What happens when a program parses binary data that contains field 1 with the value 2?

>- Open enums will parse the value 2 and store it directly in the field. Accessor will report the field as being set and will return something that represents 2.

>- Closed enums will parse the value 2 and store it in the message’s unknown field set. Accessors will report the field as being unset and will return the enum’s default value.

It used to be that we broadly had two sets of semantics (modulo additional customizations): proto2 and proto3. Proto editions was supposed to unify the two versions, but instead now we have the option to mix and match all of the quirks of each of the versions.

And, to make matters worse, you also have language-dependent implementations that don't conform to the spec (in fact, very few implementations are conformant). C++ and Java treat everything imported by a proto2 file as closed; C#, Golang, and JS treat everything as open.

I don't see a path forward for removing these custom deprecated field features, or else we'd have already begun that effort during the initial adoption of editions.

Because it's a free plan, the delay between 'limits reached' and actual shutdown only incurs the cost of providing the service during that brief period, not the potential liability of overcharging that might exist on a paid plan.

Or write a disclaimer that the billing cap doesn't necessarily cut off at exactly that amount and that there might be an overcharge.

I am pretty sure most people would be okay with either of these options, we didn't need a perfect system, just one that works well enough

> other folks can't because they don't get it like I do

His point of view undoubtedly resonates with 'some folks'.

> ... mind become filled with mush

> desperate pledge of allegiance ...

Arguably because a large portion of the population doesn't agree that it's unimportant and performative. Current culture is captured by the concept and collectively spends a massive amount of time worrying about it.

If you personally feel that this is a waste of time, how else do you communicate that if not by spending time thinking and writing about it?

I also think most meetings are a complete waste of time. The fact that many other people feel meetings are important directly impacts me, and just believing that they're a waste isn't good enough. It's necessary to actively push against something if you think that thing needs to change.

"College students larp. It's their nature. It's usually harmless. But larping morality turned out to be a poisonous combination."

If you're describing something as poisonous, especially if it's the behavior of a large group of people, then you're saying it's important.

This is the first and only article I recall from PG about wokeness, is it part of some anthology that I've missed or where are you getting the "this much time" part from?

Here he is with receipts that he has been talking about wokeness like a weirdo for close to a decade now.

https://gist.github.com/uschen/38fc65fa7e43f5765a584c6cd24e1...

#![allow(unused)]

fn main() {

    use std::sync::atomic::{AtomicI64, Ordering};

    let some_var = AtomicI64::new(5);
    
    if some_var.load(Ordering::Relaxed) % 2 == 0 {
        some_var.fetch_add(1, Ordering::Relaxed);
    } else {
        some_var.fetch_add(2, Ordering::Relaxed);
    }
}

Its a real term in the sense that it's a grammatically correct way of describing multiple atomic operations being composed together...

https://ocistatus.oraclecloud.com/#/incidents/ocid1.oraclecl...

- for _, e := range es {

- pumpUp(&e)

}

+ for i := range es {

+ pumpUp(&es[i])

}