Hard disagree. Satire is never labeled as such. By identifying sarcasm or sardonicism, you would basically be saying that the comment is not inherently absurd enough to be immediately recognizable as laughably wrong. The whole point of sarcasm is to highlight absurdity.
There will always be people who misinterpret this kind of writing. That doesn't make it bad writing; some people are just a little dumb. The writing isn't for them.
No volunteer is going to put in the effort to support Ubuntu especially when the other ~5% of linux users would complain that you aren't supporting their even less used linux variant. They would then do a crappy job of adding support for their distribution and absolutely none of it would work.
If you develop for Linux, shouldn't the software build and run on all the distros (with the end user doing the building using "./configure" until the distro picks it up and packages it)? Even for hardware interfacing with SDR devices?
Kids in the 90s had never seen an actual paper file nor a manilla folder either, yet they managed to learn file system concepts. Skeuomorphism is valuable when designing UIs but was never that important for teaching computer concepts 30 years ago.
He didn't say 1 in 5 is common. He said 1 in 5 is not that uncommon. He's right. If 1 in 5 people in 1991 have a computer in the house, having a computer is not that uncommon.
This is a circular argument. In order for it not to be, you need to show how “having a computer in the house in 1991” is already a not uncommon thing for that to then apply to 1 in 5 not being uncommon.
Nonsense. Code is copy-pasteable; other things are not.
One can give very accurate estimates of how long it takes to build a brick wall because building brick walls takes time and labor. You can make highly accurate estimates of how long it takes based on how long it has taken to do the exact same task in the past.
But suppose I laid one brick and then could copy-paste it, then copy-paste that into four bricks, then eight, until I have a wall. Then I can copy-paste the entire wall. Once I have a building I can copy-paste the entire building in five seconds.
The ability to copy and paste an entire building is very valuable but how long does it take to create that copyable template? No one knows because it has never been done before.
Building brick walls is easy to estimate not because it is physical labor but because the company has done it many times before. Ask a construction company to estimate a unique one-off job and they will most likely fail. And that is despite them getting a lot of resources for investigating and planning which software engineers almost never get.
The comments in this thread are astounding. The only thing I can think of that may be happening is that people here are so disturbed by the possibility that emergency services can fail that they have fallen into denial. "There is no need for people to help, at least without going through organized channels, because those organized channels are in control" is what I suspect they are thinking.
I saw it online after Trump was shot- "How could the top protection organization in the world fail so flagrantly? The shooter must have had inside help." Some people cannot accept that the world is less safe than it really is. It could be the cause of some of these comments in this thread but I don't know if it's the whole cause.
After a physical bomb went off 24 hours prior, trapping us, one of my co-workers is dead, and no emergency services responded? Is that really your question?
It was obvious sardonicism. Sardonicism is often humorous. The point was to mock those who criticize private companies but not government institutions. An underlying point was that they should be treated equally but aren't.
When it's your job to decide which safety equipment to install on highways or whether to install scrubbers on coal power plants, you have to think like this.
Having adults give this a once-over would have been better. Does the law allow collusion online rather than IRL? This sentence implies that it does, otherwise the "IRL" is superfluous. Most (but not all) of us know, based on our knowledge and experience with zoomer writing, that the writer is not speaking literally or carefully. But this is a summary of a legal document and can be used in a court of law. This writing is terrible given the context.
It's not the only example of bad writing.
> And even if some of the conspirators cheat by starting with lower prices than those the algorithm recommended, that doesn’t necessarily change things. Being bad at breaking the law isn’t a defense.
Breaking the law less or not at all is indeed a defense, possibly a successful one. It also doesn't constitute being "bad" at breaking the law.
Lots of people who work in government agencies feel that it is okay to lie to the public to try to achieve greater goods. They are wrong.
There will always be people who misinterpret this kind of writing. That doesn't make it bad writing; some people are just a little dumb. The writing isn't for them.