Elderos

Seems like past a certain point people will just keep doubling down because turning back would be admitting that you've been a fool.

What is crazy about American politics is that "one side" is not just wrong or misguided, but very wrong, demonstrably so. So very wrong that it is insane from an outsider pespective to try to imagine by what wild loops of logic you could end up so very wrong considering that we're all supposed to be watching the same movie. You can point at basically anything, on any issue at random, and try to reverse engineer the Republican stance on an issue, and you will face absolutely paper thin, weak arguments, weak premises, unverifiable claims every time, about everything, and in a very unmistakable way that the line of reasoning is, again, not just a bit wrong, but very wrong.

I knew a lot of people weren't very good at that abstract thinking stuff, making deliberate assumptions and at identifying signal from noise, but frankly, I did not expect almost half of the human race to be absolute morons when it comes to critical thinking. Good luck everyone.

yep, he lived a fulfilling life of crimes and morally dubious choices, I figure nobody, including himself, would have expected to lose that immunity from consequences especially after serving as president. Though I guess there was indeed a limit to just how cartoony evil you could be, even though it is incredibly hard to get there.

I mean, in his shoes I would probably also feel compelled to call out the loons in my field too. I hear dumb shit on social media websites concerning my actual domain of expertise, and I get accused of whatever when I call it out. Don't get.in the way of a good outrage story, or conspiracy, unless you want to find out just how many loons are lurking out there.

Reagan allegedly requested nuclear strikes on NK when drunk (which was every evening I figure), and had his staff agree to ignore it multiple times.

I don't know about the former, but yes to the latter.

The idiots are being manipulated in cults and are pushing twice as hard compared to other demographics to get their guy in. Meanwhile a majority of average people are straight up not bothering with the process at all. We're really not good at governing ourselves past a certain size, because we only care about the stuff that directly affect us. The cults are merely providing fake issues to get the idiots out.

I read the Tweet, it does not "show" that the account had purchased games. This has been Ubisoft's policy for years and there is no record of deleted account, except for a random tweet.

This is misleading and ragebait. They only delete old-ass accounts without purchased games, and this is a compliance thing with European laws.

It certainly adds up, and it makes maintaining the databases more complex and costly as a whole.

Imo this is just lazy, they could at the very least "archive" old accounts and move the bare minimum data out of the main DB, as to make it possible to reactivate the account later on. Why can virtually every platform keep old account arround, but not Ubisoft?

What you seem to be describing is one big class with lots of responsabilities, and not circular dependency. Personally, I don't think it is ideal, and I don't know about your specific case so I could be wrong, but I have never seen a legit case for bloated classes. That being said, making a big class is still much better than splitting it into inter-dependant classes. Classes that know each other are so cohesive that they might as well be the same class anyway.

To add onto the circular dependency problem, it is not just about readability and cognitive load (though there is some of that), but cyclic dependencies actively break things, and make it much harder to manage the lifecycle of a program. No dependency injection, poor memory management, long compile times. It is a huge hack, and I understand that you think it can be the proper solution sometime, but it is really just a bad thing to do, and it will bite you some day. And I am assuming here that you're using a language that is friendly, in some languages you won't even compile or run past a certain point, and good luck cleaning up that mess.

edit: replaced "module" with "class" for consistency

It does not get more complicated to split your example. What gets more complicated is giving all sort of unrelated responsabilities to a single class, simply because it is the path of least resistance.

In your example, all you need is an extra module listening for configuration changes and reacting to it. This way you leave your context-specific logic out of your data model, no need for cyclic dependency. There are so many downsides to cyclic dependency, to justify it because splitting your logic is "too complicated" really isn't a strong argument.