Bruh, you're talking about supporting project 2025 and literal fascism.

Shut the fuck up.

Jesus fucking Christ it's not complicated.

"Wah wah Biden is tired, let's elect Hitler". Fucking dumbasses.

Man, I kind of hate this guy's videos. He really just seems like he likes to hear himself talk more than he wants to convey meaningful information.

I think the better question is what purpose is served by trying to categorize movies into "cartoon" movies and "not cartoon movies"?

Toy Story is a CG movie and has more nuance, character development, and purpose than say, the live action film Hackers, and so does Who Framed Roger Rabbit, which is a mix of live action, special effects, and traditional hand animation, so what purpose is served by chunking them up based on which one used film editing / splicing, which one used stop motion, which one was traditionally animated, which one used CG, and which one had some blend of the above?

Money was literally invented to be an abstraction of resources. When people talk about money they usually mean resources.

Assuming you're talking about American healthcare companies, thats because you have a broken nonsensical healthcare system filled with middlemen who will suck up profits.

That has nothing to do with the concept of opportunity cost. Pick a different industry, like agriculture / food then. If you spend $20 on food every month instead of fireworks, then feeding yourself the rest of the food you need is $20 cheaper.

That is absolutely just how money works, if that same money had gone to say, healthcare companies instead of fireworks companies, we would have the same amount of paper money, and we wouldn't have fireworks, but we'd have lower healthcare costs since we already paid some of them.

The money itself? Sure. But that's not what people talk about when they talk about money, they are usually referring to what the money represents, i.e. resources, which were all burnt up and used to create that fire work when they could have gone to something else.

i.e. if we spent some huge proportion of our money on fireworks every year, we would still have the same amount of money on paper in the economy, but absolutely everything else would cost far more. From our actual lived perspective we would be poorer.

The point I'm making is kind of the opposite, unless the contract explicitly states that they're the same they should not be treated as the same, because at a fundamental level they are not the same thing even if Java wants to treat them as such.

Null means I'm telling you it's null.

Omission means it's not there and I'm not telling you anything about it.

There is a world of difference between those two statements. It's the difference between telling someone you're single or just sitting there and saying nothing.

I've never once seen a JSON serializer misjudge null and absent fields, I've just seen developers do that.

They're not subtle distinctions.

There's a huge difference between checking whether a field is present and checking whether it's value is null.

If you use lazy loading, doing the wrong thing can trigger a whole network request and ruin performance.

Similarly when making a partial change to an object it is often flat out infeasible to return the whole object if you were never provided it in the first place, which will generally happen if you have a performance focused API since you don't want to be wasting huge amounts of bandwidth on unneeded data.