I get what you’re saying. I guess what I’m yelling at the clouds about is the common discourse more than anything else.

If a screw has a slotted head, and your screwdriver is a torx, few people would say that the screwdriver won’t allow them to do something.

Computers are just tools, and we’re the ones who created them. We shouldn’t be submissive, we should acknowledge that we have taken the wrong approach at solving something and do it a different way. Just like I would bitch about never having the correct screwdriver handy, and then go look for the right one.

Stupid cloud, who’s laughing now?

I get the analogy, but I don’t think that it’s valid. Soldiers are, much to the chagrin of their commanders, sentient beings, and should question potentially illegal orders.

Where the analogy doesn’t hold is, besides my computer not being sentient, what I’m prevented from doing isn’t against the law of man.

I’m not claiming to be infallible. After all to err is human, and I’m indeed very human. But throw me a warning when I do something that goes against best practices, that’s fine. Whether I deal with it is something for me to decide. But stopping me from doing what I’m trying to do, because it’s potentially problematic? GTFO with that kinda BS.

But it will let you do it if you really want to.

Now, I’ve seen this a couple of times in this post. The idea that the compiler will let you do anything is so bizarre to me. It’s not a matter of being allowed by the software to do anything. The software will do what you goddamn tell it to do, or it gets replaced.

WE’RE the humans, we’re not asking some silicon diodes for permission. What the actual fuck?!? We created the fucking thing to do our bidding, and now we’re all oh pwueez mr computer sir, may I have another ADC EAX, R13? FUCK THAT! Either the computer performs like the tool it is, or it goes the way of broken hammers and lawnmowers!