It's unlikely "natural" has anything to do with it. Compounds that occur naturally are often synthesized, but it's the same molecule as found in nature. (example: vanillin) There are some scent molecules that are totally new and not found in nature outside of our production, but "naturally occurring" is a broad category that can include all sort of things individuals are likely to be sensitive to even after removing all the "natural" chemicals that are actual poison.
Reposting something I posted in another thread but I think it's more relevant to this comment:
Would it be a good or bad look for the Fedora project if they went after a popular and commercially ruthless hosting provider offering "Fedora Hosting" for trademark infringement, while cutting off repo and update access to that provider specifically, unless they paid up some % of revenue?
Regardless of if Fedora was justified or not, it would totally destroy trust in the ecosystem and people would start to talk about seeking alternatives, which is exactly what is happening with WordPress.
Would it be a good or bad look for the Fedora project if they went after a popular and commercially ruthless hosting provider offering "Fedora Hosting" for trademark infringement, while cutting off repo and update access to that provider specifically, unless they paid up some % of revenue?
Regardless of if Fedora was justified or not, it would totally destroy trust in the ecosystem and people would start to talk about seeking alternatives, which is exactly what is happening with WordPress.
> The abbreviation “WP” is not covered by the WordPress trademarks, but please don’t use it in a way that confuses people. For example, many people think WP Engine is “WordPress Engine” and officially associated with WordPress, which it’s not. They have never once even donated to the WordPress Foundation, despite making billions of revenue on top of WordPress.
This is kind of a wild change. And the change of tone about "WP" aside, it is very strange to make complaints like this on a trademark policy page of all places.
This whole thing is very bizarre and not a great look.
I don’t think it’s a wild change. Explicitly enumerated or not, one might assume that any open-source trademark owner does not allow use of their trademark that implies connection to, or authority over, the root project or that “creates confusion”.
Take a look at the Red Hat Trademark guidelines page, which is based on the Model Trademark Guidelines (CC-BY-4.0) designed for the open-source community. They explicitly mention that you cannot “Use the Red Hat Marks in a way that expresses or implies sponsorship or endorsement by, or affiliation or a relationship with Red Hat when one does not exist.” They also remind you that “Red Hat, at its sole discretion, may terminate or modify your permission at any time. Red Hat retains and reserves all rights to the Red Hat Marks and their use, including the sole right to modify these Guidelines, with immediate or later effect.”
If the WordPress Foundation had explicitly included a similar reminder would you still find the change “wild”?
Well they probably have made at least 1 billion over the lifetime of the company, it looks like their annual revenue is a couple hundred million. But multiple billions? And forgetting to say "dollars"? Does anyone proofread this stuff?
I second this. Bot activity can even come from legitimate ephemeral residential or office IPs with devices temporarily (hopefully) infected with malware.
OP has made some questionable statements, that if said on an interview, would be a big red flag for me
> I also can wager that most people don't need type safety enough to ...
I think most of the industry has decided type safety is worth the effort
> For the tin hat owners out there ...
Dawning tinfoil hat ideas is definitely no-go territory in interviews
---
There is a difference between evaluating tradeoffs and coming off as a highly opinionated person that will make such discussions more difficult than they need to be
Maybe, maybe not, it's context / company dependent decision. A full rewrite is an opportunity to pay down other technical debt at the same time, or open the door to fully new approaches.
It's more about how one engages in such a debate than the merits looking in from the outside. OP wanted to know why they are having issues in interviews, their language / approach is probably the root cause, not the merits.
It's a perfectly valid view and if the interviewer values dogma more than the ability to look at pros and cons (and the willingness to go along with the "good-enough" solution the team already has momentum towards), then that's on them. Lose-lose for everyone, but that's how it goes sometimes.
Edit: I think this would be much easier to accept if the job market weren't so tough right now. You could shop around for an employer better aligned and who "gets it."
