FWIW, “boiling the frog” is the example of false reasoning about slippery slopes (the frog in actuality always left)
Your larger point still stands though of normalizing changing expectations by slow degrees
Your larger point still stands though of normalizing changing expectations by slow degrees
I want a system, like type safety, to guarantee that XYZ cannot be possible, rather than rely on civil jurisprudence and active opposition to prevent it. We don't have that today, but i like to have it.
It’s kind of self-defeating, isn’t it? Why would I adopt your standard when it limits what I can build?