>His two front teeth (red box) are different shapes and sizes. The teeth on the right side of his mouth have not been rendered properly at all. An analysis of Max’s facial features suggests he has more in common with an AI-generated fake than with a real person.
It's actually a very interesting contrast with what "fake" used to mean in digital media. You see models with flawless skin, perfect teeth, digitally sculpted curves, and the original photo didn't look that flawless.
Now somebody has asymmetric ears like I do, and that's a hint they're fake?
I do understand it but, for my colleagues and friends who don't have English as their first language, it adds another caveat to learn and remember without a logical basis. That's another place to introduce ambiguity and errors.
I don't get angry at non-standard usage but I think it's important not to ignore the purpose of consistent style.
>the people who needed it more and were willing to pay more got it
And there the idealism breaks down. Willing to pay more - which you always are if it becomes a life-or-death situation - does not mean able to pay more; able to pay more does not mean deserves it more.
There is no law that prevents stores from having limits. Most places seem to manage not running out of inventory with significant sales or coupons just fine.
"Most places manage not to run out of inventory when they give out their own coupons or choose to run sales and have decades of experience in knowing what to expect from them" does not translate to "will know how to avoid running out during a black swan event like a pandemic".
Limits are legal, but sufficiently desperate people will do what it takes to get around them. A major component of the problem here is that neither you nor these stores can take their normal day-to-day experiences and apply them to black swan events like this. Your System 1 (bleh, what a terrible name that is....) heuristics are lying to you; you need to engage System 2 for this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow
I only know not to write things so complex because either I have made the mistake or some generation of someone I've learned from has made the mistake. It's not a logic problem, where the less complicated, better understood and more general rules of precedence allow writing equations that are terse, objective, and easily parsed by humans: it was born with C's invented, abstraction-breaking rules of precedence. You only learn it with a C-like language. What's a bit to a mathematician?
I'd argue the practices that are most popularly known as 'good practices' are to avoid mistakes that are common.
Isn't that the same for most open-source software[1]? To a Wikipedia editor going into a programming project to correct documentation, it might seem absurd that we want them to 'pass CI', 'squash the commits and correct the message column width to pass the code style', or 'sign the CLA'.
[1] It's a very prettied-up domain-specific language but it's still copyleft software.
It would be, if the requirements were clearly documented, consistent for all pages, and consistently enforced. They are none of those things.
EDIT: the other big difference is that every time I've attempted to contribute to an open-source project, people have, in general, been helpful and willing to explain what needed improvement. On Wikipedia, it's a much more hostile attitude. People are less willing to explain why your content was reverted or nominated for deletion, and if you protest, there's a decent chance that you'll be sanctioned (either topic-banned or temp-banned from Wikipedia). Imagine if forgetting to run a linter got your SSH key tempbanned from the project and you'll have a closer analogy to the current process.
Or a real person who didn't have braces?