@icedquinn @vii this is a common logic error people of average intelligence make. It's the same one that led to all those karate dojos being all over the place in the 90s

you take some housewife who doesn't live in the real world and give her a karate lesson. I mean she doesn't live in the real world, like, she doesn't face the universe's consequences for any action she ever takes. There's always some kind of systemic buffer that softens any consequence she would ever have to endure for any bad decision she would ever make. So she doesn't critically analyze situations, she just goes with whatever feels good.

you show her how to control someone with a knife by grabbing their his in the fucking vulcan pinch and she tries it and it works, and maybe she goes home and asks her husband let me try this on you and he lets her grab him and she drops him to the floor by jabbing his pressure points or something

now from this moment forward she'll believe she's capable of disarming a man with a knife because it's POSSIBLE that she COULD control a man with a knife. She has no understanding whatsoever, and no ability to understand, that she'll never be able to vulcan pinch an attacker's knife hand before he stabs her 36 times. That isn't part of her reality. Her reality is that if something CAN happen, then it WILL happen if she tries hard enough

internet retards like pirate software aren't trying to think of the best ways to do things, or the ways that will minimize the likelihood of failure and maximize for likelihood of release. They don't care about collaboration or atomicity because they've never encountered a need for these things before. They've only realized they CAN make a program and have leapt directly to the implementation.

After all, you CAN write an entire program like "array1[0] = true; array1[1] = false;" to set every property of every object in your game.

You CAN succeed at writing a program that way.

You WON'T.

But you COULD.