As a sysadmin, not developer, I hate Java almost as much as Windows. The error messages Java apps produce are like coded messages that you have to decipher.

I.E. Instead of "<DOMAIN> TLS Handshake failed" it will be something like "ERROR: PKIX failed". So now I have to figure out that PKIX is referring to PKI and it would make too much sense to provide the domain that failed. Instead I have to play the guessing game.

I hate when tools only produce generic "TLS Handshake failed" instead of saying why exactly it failed, where is the problem.

This is the kind of scenario that is served better by Go/C-style error values than exceptions. Error values facilitate and encourage you to log what you were doing at the precise point when an error occurs. Doing the same with exceptions idiomatically often requires an exception hierarchy or copious amounts of separate try/catches.

The difference really becomes apparent when trying to debug a customer's problem at 3am (IME).

Sounds like you'd both be happy if the tool produced both.

Sounds to me that deepsun and I are in agreement that an error message should tell you what the actual error was.

I.E. ERROR: TLS handshake failed: <DOMAIN> certificate chain unverified

This is why stack traces exist. But I agree Java seems to not really have a culture of “make the error message helpful”, but instead preferring “make the error message minimal and factual”.

For what it’s worth, the rise of helpful error messages seems to be a relatively new phenomenon the last few years.

So your issue isn't with Java, just with shit error messages and devs clearing the exception stack.

I think the point is that some start with an advantage when it comes to earning merit because by luck of birth they were born to parents with a lot of wealth.

I don't think you can have a truly meritocratic system unless everyone starts on a level playing field with the same access to resources. That is not a system that exists anywhere on this planet.

To achieve that you need to implement some kind of Harrison Bergeron system.

> a truly meritocratic system

only if you twist what you mean by meritocracy to mean equality.

Why don't you apply that exact same argument but to sports and athletics? People born with superior genes do perform better (ala, tall people in basketball).

Merit doesn't mean everyone starts at the same spot. Merit means your outcome is determined by how good you are at it - no matter how you get to become that good.

The whole point is that only some of those engaging in anti-social behaviour recieve punishment.

Right. People who only intermittently engage in such behaviors should be treated differently than people who consistently engage in them.

Tres Commas!

People still tune in to watch Alex Jones. I wouldn't hold my breath.

I have had the opposite experience living in the south. The cars with the most bumper sticks around here are owned by conservatives. Today I saw a truck with a US flag in place of its tailgate, "I back the blue" painted on the rear windshield, a Trump sticker, a sticker that said "Don't steal! The government hates competition." and more.

Controlling shares are owned by Vanguard and BlackRock. I would not consider either to be progressive.

They didn't say either of those things. What they said is that you can say no and not accept contributions without being a toxic asshat.

You can do it the first couple thousand times. After that it just becomes harder and harder to be sociable.

Would you still be so nice after doing it the ten thousandth time?

Same in my house. :D