I read, and then I posted. Is there anything in my reply that I can explain to you?
Are you sure this is a Cloudflare issue?
For shits and giggles I logged into programming.dev with Firefox Focus, and suffice to say I'm posting this with that browser.
I also did some tweaking and I did noticed that it I configure Firefox Focus to strip all types of tracking (akin to NoScript) then Cloudflare complains about extensions.
Cloudflare projecting its dominating power onto lemmy?
I'm sorry, this assertion is meaningless scaremongering. What exactly is "projecting it's dominating power" supposed to mean?
And by the way, may I point out that site maintainers purposely adopted Cloudflare to serve specific purposes?
Cloudflare gives its 522 error
This means Cloudflare is forwarding the request but the origin server times out. Meaning, it's the origin server that is unable to handle the IPv6 request.
I use Firefox Focus on my mobile and I can’t enter sites with CloudFlare because it says my browser is incompatible.
I also use Firefox Focus and I never experienced that issue at all. Are you sure this is a Cloudflare issue?
Also, site owners are purposely using Cloudflare to protect themselves from abnormal traffic. If site owners are the ones paying Cloudflare to lift these barriers, why do you interpret this issue as a problem created by Cloudflare?
Personally, my local Cloudflare seems to have some problem with IPv6 and many sites won’t load.
Some global ISPs still struggle with IPv6. I recall that until somewhat recently Vodafone didn't supported it at all. Are you sure this is a Cloudflare issue?
So this is more about preventing future problems and not solving problems that exist.
The question remains unanswered: which problems, hypothetically or otherwise, would this migration solve?
What problem would be solved by this hypothetical migration?
I'm all for syntactic sugar, but these ad-hoc extensions appear to increase the complexity of the language without adding anything relevant in return.
Reducing C++ template bloat by factoring out the type-dependent portions of the function
(devblogs.microsoft.com)
No left at the company even knows how to work the erp properly. Because the person who set it up and customized it didn’t document or train anyone and then left…
That's not technical debt. That isn't even the definition of legacy code. That's a mess and a whole set of problems, but technical debt ain't one of it.
Is it really unethical if it benefits the organization? Even if that’s not really the goal.
The blogger acknowledge that the use of the word "unethical" as a hyperbole ton drive engagement.
The real-world issue is that we need to get stakeholders on board with the idea of having to do extra work that is not required to deliver a feature. If you tell a manager that you need to spend a month rewriting a system that was just launched, they will laugh at you.
Technical debt is very real and can complete fuck companies.
Even though the situation you described is unfortunate, I don't think it has any relationship with the concept of technical debt.
The term "technical debt" conveys the idea that a resource is invested in a way that requires to be repaid later. The whole concept revolves around the idea that taking shortcuts doesn't eliminate the need to actually do the work to make things then right way. Rushing to a deliverable can leave a mess in your wake, but cleaning up that mess is also work that needs to be done and doesn't magically go away.