disgusting_guy

That's an incredibly broad statement; we are talking about what movies people have watched on netflix. What possible non-anonymous dataset could you be cross referencing to de-anonymize it? Even if you could, who cares?

>which assumes you know what you're doing

This is exactly my point, there should be no autovivification - I'd wager most people using perl these days don't know what they're doing, they're reluctantly editing some legacy code.

It's a dangerous default behaviour that can lead to very hard to debug errors. Most languages don't do this so people don't expect it; I don't know C# but can immediately tell what the code you wrote is doing. Explicit is better.

It's extra confusing because if you try and dereference undef without accessing a value it's an error:

  perl -Mstrict -WE 'my $test; say @{ $test };'
  Can't use an undefined value as an ARRAY reference at -e line 1.

What harm is there in a warning? You can disable classes of warnings in perl if you want to, or turn them off completely. I would much rather be explicit so I don't accidentally use some magic.

Agreed -- there are far too many pitfalls that you only really learn through debugging strange behaviour. Autovivication is a perfect example of this:

  perl -wE 'my @test; say $test[5]{yes}[0]{ok}++; say scalar @test; say ref $test[5]; say $test[5]{yes}[0]{ok}'

outputs:

   0
   6
   HASH
   1

with not a single warning

Money kept in the bank is guaranteed by your government to retain (some) value; it is backed by the economy of your country. Bitcoin is not backed by anything other than speculation on implied value

You can send it as a gif in whatsapp.

In the kitchen they are particularly useful, or any time you don't have your hands free:

"Alexa, play some soft rock"

"Alexa, set a timer for 10 minutes"

"Alexa, skip this track"

"Alexa, how long do I boil an egg for"

You describe it like it is simple but that is ridiculous number of steps to simply check your data was actually written to the database.

>that's as reliable as it gets when inserting into any database including SQL

The difference being in a SQL database you call commit and all this happens for you automatically

No, all messages cannot be recovered by Facebook. Read the article - messages that are not yet delivered can potentially be read; if it has been delivered it cannot be retrieved.

I disagree - a simple solution exists, which means you cannot use the mic and a button at the same time. Apple invested time and money to solve this problem in a non-trivial way; it seems perfectly reasonable to me that headset manufacturers wanting to use Apple's solution should pay royalties

The court case documents are worth looking at before forming any opinions: https://www.unitedstatescourts.org/federal/nysd/463894/ (specifically https://www.unitedstatescourts.org/federal/nysd/463894/1-0.h...) -- it alleges that former LSF engineers joined teraproc after leaving IBM and took source code with them, as well as claiming teraproc went after IBM clients offering their managed cluster software for less money than LSF.

David Bigagli also says in the first post in that thread:

  IBM does not have a technical answer to OpenLava and to the benefit its users have. 
  They cannot articulate why their software is better than OpenLava for the money they charge for it. 
  IBM fears OpenLava because is does provide a better functionality than their own software and 
  that's why it can only reply with a lawsuit by hiring: 
  Kirkland & Ellis LLP.

Sounds like there might be slightly more to this than is outlined in comments.