Setting up your own filtering rules seems like a relatively tiny time investment compared to the productivity gains if you have a busy mail account. Other features that Gmail lack are IMO more important than magic filtering, like a proper threaded view, or not being pestered by their AI bullshit.
What does "political" mean in this context? To me it seems obvious that yes, that is a political choice, as is every other choice a group of people make for themselves together.
> I don't select my engineering tools because they give me a bad feeling - I select them because they do the thing I want them to.
With that in mind, is there anything that yt-dlp uses the Bun runtime for which it can not use the other supported runtimes for? Similarly, perhaps the yt-dlp maintainers shouldn't keep supporting Bun just because it gives them a good feeling when every runtime incurs a maintenance cost.
That said, as a developer I skim over so much bullshit simply based on "bad feelings". I don't have time to evaluate every potentially useful technology in terms of whether it does what I want it to do, and no one else does either. It's clear to me that Bun is in an experimental phase of development and I think that's a good enough reason to move on if your use case is not.
A language game assumes mutually understood "rules" in the form of shared context that makes language that would otherwise be unclear meaningful. If the intended meaning is not conveyed, we're failing at playing a language game.
In this case, the notion that the slop grenade is intended to communicate "I don't know, but here's my attempt to help" is as far as we know entirely a fiction, possibly a favorable interpretation GP uses not to let themselves be annoyed. In reality, the intent could be any number of things or nothing in particular.
It seems more likely to me that these slop grenades are attempts at appearing to a third party to have weighed in on important decisions. It's a deliberate technique to become more visible in order to win favor with someone who can't tell reasoned responses from useless bullshit.
This self-aggrandizing trash was a normal part of professional culture before the current LLM sewage torrent, but tactlessly used LLMs are so awful at writing that it's never been so transparent before.
If I am explicitly asking for someone's opinion and they respond with a slop grenade that has nothing to do with their opinion, I'm indifferent to the moral question whether they're acting in good faith. The practical effects are the same: my time is wasted, I'm annoyed, I lose respect for them, I am less likely to consider their opinion in the future.
Yes, many of those are perfectly stable. For example, the 6502 has an undocumented instruction commonly known as "LAX" which loads both the A and X registers at the same time in a predictable manner in most addressing modes, in the same time and space it would otherwise take to load either of those registers on their own.
The benefits of being able to do stuff like this when you need to conserve resources are obvious, and common idioms have formed around their use. Check out https://csdb.dk/release/?id=198357
"Is this fun" and "is it something a person in their 20s would want to play" are entirely different questions.
There are people who absolutely thrive doing the things NetHack rewards you for in the long term: perseverance, patience, planning, resourcefulness, risk management, strategizing, analyzing and learning systems... I feel like it has a timeless and ageless appeal to a particular kind of player and has never been quite palatable to mainstream audiences. If you like NetHack today you probably do it for the same reasons you would 30 years ago.
reply