You can disagree, but "Presumably you meant the opposite of what you said" is condescending nonsense.

It's the most charitable interpretation. I think HN rules require that you give others the benefit of the doubt and assume that most charitable case.

I know all the reasons it "wouldn't work", but I'd love to see somewhere try this.

The commonly cited source says, when you take the entire sentence, "We should forget about small efficiencies, say about 97% of the time: premature optimization is the root of all evil." and continues "Yet we should not pass up our opportunities in that critical 3%."

There's only so much you can do with people who will not even take the complete original sentence, let alone the context. (That said, "premature optimisation is the root of all evil" is much snappier so I do see why it's ended up being quoted in isolation)

So, big enough for a 25GB game but not a 150GB game? I will be amused if we get stats in the coming month that the percentage of users installing the game on a HDD has decreased from 11% to like 3% after they shrunk it.

If they're not passed around as objects a la FILE*/fd they're not even really capabilities, just (sparkling) fine-grained ambient authority (which still has value to be clear).

You're already putting your trust in some mysterious first party to not embed malware...

You're doing that pretty much regardless of what OS you use. Yes, I agree MS has issues, but legitimate malware has not yet been a line they have crossed.

If I created a program that took screenshots and keylogged everything that you did, and then put it in your computer, you'd rightly call it malware. But, when Microsoft does this, it isn't? They aren't exactly trustworthy (as you said, it has issues).

Malware, maybe not. But adware...?

Companies keep generating this proliferation of xyz-ware names to distract from the fact that anything that works against the user's interest is fundamentally malware.

Do factor in that people in a healthy marriage don't have a lot of marriages.

For first-time marriages, the number is still quite high (~40%)

Presumably adding Redis to a new project with no performance issues (yet?) is the premature optimisation.

If you are optimizng for simplicity it may not be, as the use as a cache is much (much) more straightforward. Also, for a new project, I'd go with in-memory service-level cache as it outperforms both (in any metric) and can be easily replaced once the need arises.

Quantity has a quality all its own.

If someone tells me x86, I am certainly thinking 32-bit protected mode not 64-bit long mode... Granted I'm in the weird space where I know enough to be dangerous but not enough to keep me up-to-date with idiomatic naming conventions.