Formatters breaking code is not something that happens in all language ecosystems; I think it's mostly a C++ and occasionally JS issue, but for gofmt and many other formatters just don't break code. It's also not really that common anyways.

You can solve the Git noise issue by enforcing formatting in CI and keeping formatter configuration in repo. This is what most high quality open source projects will do. The purpose of this is not about "adhering to aesthetic ideologies", it's about not bothering people with the minutiae of yet another pointless set of formatting conventions. Most developers couldn't give a shit less where you think braces should go, or whether you like tabs or spaces, or whatever else, they care about more important things like data structures and writing more correct code. Having auto formatting enables them to effortlessly follow project norms without needing to, for every single repo they work in, carefully try to adhere to the documented formatting (which usually winds up being inconsistent eventually anyways, in projects without auto formatting, because humans are fallible.)

The reason why people submit code with a huge formatting diff is usually because your project didn't ship a formatter manifest but their editor is configured to format on save. That's because probably most of the projects people work on now do actually use some form of automatic formatting, be it clang-format, gofmt, prettier, black, etc. so it winds up being necessary to special case your project to not try to run a formatter. It's still a beginner's mistake to actually commit and PR a huge reformatting, but it definitely happens by accident to even experienced devs when working on projects that have weird manual formatting.

You know what, though? I kind of think you don't even need bots for the "majority opinion" to get widely skewed.

For example, you can find an absolute ballistic lunatic take on Twitter that has 10,000 retweets basically trivially.

Of course, some of that is bots. Maybe someone paid for engagements. It's easy to do so, so it's naturally what a lot of people assume.

Even if it wasn't mostly bots... 10,000 people? It feels like a lot, enough to make us feel like that opinion is at least somewhat validated socially. But in reality, it's just a number. Would we even care who agreed if we knew what types of people they were?

But even if we did still care, all this really tells us is that 10,000 people hit a button. Why? A lot of big creators could say virtually anything and immediately get social validation in return, I strongly doubt that the majority of people interacting really have an actual strong conviction about whatever position is being expressed.

But even if they all really did hold a strong conviction... how many people is 10,000 really? Twitter has several hundred million users. Around 100,000,000 active U.S. users each month. It is still kind of impressive in a sense that 10,000 people saw a post and decided to click a button I guess, but I think our intuition is really broken when it comes to large enough numbers of people; it does not suggest that most people, or even a large minority of people, actually agree with it.

But what about the posts we don't see? The average Twitter user has 770 followers, but that number is highly skewed by very large accounts... One metric I found online, though I couldn't find a good source, suggests that 0.06% of users have over 1,000 followers. There are accounts with millions of followers. Needless to say, the posts that find the most visibility on Twitter are largely curated by a very elite group of users... naturally, the majority of "popular" posts you're going to see are not just random posts that happened to catch on. They're mostly posts that a large account boosted! Naturally this is going to cause all sorts of problems.

You could go on and on and on. The social media Internet is basically a giant false plurality machine. There doesn't need to be bots. There doesn't need to be troll farms. There doesn't need to even be bad actors, malice, disinformation campaigns.

And it's silly, because our brains are obsessed with what "most people" think, and I think there are some rational, logical reasons to care about this, but I don't believe in earnest that this is mostly coming from a rational place. People desperately want to feel belonging, and to feel validated in their opinions. How many people here on Hacker News reply then come back a few minutes later to check and see if the post got upvoted or downvoted? Who doesn't have at least a little bit of a "dopamine rush" when they have a post that gets hugely upvoted on Reddit or Hacker News, or reposted a lot on Twitter/Mastodon/etc.?

Yet, even though we know about this, we don't then earnestly take this into account when we see "popular" opinions. You ever notice how obsessed the social media Internet has become with condemning social taboos? Seems pretty straight-forward to me, it's an easy way to get that "people agree with me" dopamine hit. I'm not even saying that people intentionally do this, either. People unknowingly shape their behavior around what they think will get them that positive attention. I sincerely doubt I am immune from it, I'm sure all of my Hacker News posts wreak of HN-specific self-censorship and intricate codeswitching even though I really try not to do that sort of thing. Hell, scrutinize this paragraph: "Oh, 'social taboos'? Afraid to just say the one we're all thinking of?"

Social media isn't even alone, false pluralities absolutely spread in the real world, too, I just think that social media is really good at doing it faster and more intense than ever before.

Honestly, I just think we care too much about what "everyone" thinks. Imagine the laws if they were based on what the majority of people think they should be. Imagine Wikipedia if the rule for resolving conflicts was a poll of what people think should go in the articles. Even if we really could know what the majority of people truly think, a lot of the time, I'm not sure we should do anything with that information. Do most people really think hard enough about problems to really have an informed opinion on most issues?

I think, instead of focusing on what most people think, we should just simply always seek to do the right thing, and seek to be as "correct" as possible in a world without absolute objective truth. I'm not a politics person, but I think this sort of thing is exactly what abstractions like having representatives is good for... it's kind of unfortunate that in the real world, these systems can wind up being corrupted to the point of being a net negative.

And I think that means we should just do our best to ditch websites like Twitter that are basically as unproductive as possible here. Maybe some Twitter alternatives can do a little better here, particularly ones that allow for smaller groups and communities to have their own spaces, but really I just think the entire "model" is not very good. For all of the faults of structured discussion forums like Hacker News, unstructured social media just doesn't seem to work very well for much other than soaking up attention and moving tons of advertising dollars.

Porn, piracy and other questionable sites have always had a lot of fun when it comes to finding advertisers, but it does seem like it's gotten worse over time, encompassing many more sites. It also seems like whether an advertiser is concerned about where exactly their algorithmic ads appear is pretty inconsistent, too.

What I think is interesting is that it seems like Japan is less affected by this. I know I've seen major Japanese companies advertising on sites like Pixiv and Misskey, which have both had some trouble with American payment processors. Heck, I'm pretty sure I've seen Ubiquiti ads when browsing Misskey.

I guess the anglosphere Internet is somewhat impacted by the presence of more "puritan" influence than some other global packets of the Internet. Not 100% sure what to make of that.

> Then why does it seem that millennials share more opinions worldwide than any prior generation?

That seems sort of tangential to me.

> Also, doesn’t anyone find it odd that we’re commenting on a post about stopping commenting, without addressing that?

Not at all. I used to comment in a variety of different places across the Internet: discussion forums, image boards, random blogs, Reddit, Digg, etc. The vast majority of places I used to comment have deteriorated significantly or are simply significantly less amenable to actual discourse than they used to be.

Hacker News is weird because it feels like an exception. Not the only exception remaining, perhaps not even the best depending on your tastes, but certainly one of them.

I primarily use Podman but it is worth noting a few things:

- Podman is usually used "rootless", but it doesn't have to be. It can also be used with rootful containers. It's still daemonless, though it can shim the Docker socket (very useful for using i.e. Docker Compose.)

- Docker can be used in a rootless fashion too. It will still run a daemon, but it can be a user service using user namespaces. Personally I think Podman does much better here.

Podman also has some other interesting advantages, like better systemd integrations. Sometimes Kubernetes just isn't necessarily; Podman + Systemd works well in a lot of those cases. (Note though that I have yet to try Quadlets.) Though unfortunately I don't think even the newer Quadlets integration has some basic niceties that Kubernetes has (like simple ways to do zero downtime deployments.)