Doesn't the prefix "en" in enshittification mean "more of"/"increasing"?
Because "Windows is even more shit" makes perfect sense to me.
Now that's just a tribalist attempt at excusing "one of your guys" with any excuse you can come up with no matter how illogical.
The speed with which the consequences unfold is irrelevant to responsability, only the awareness that there could be such consequences or lack thereof.
If somebody sets up a factory which releases contaminated water that poisons the region's water table with carcinogenic material resulting after several years in many people there dying of cancer, are those who set up a factory leaking carcinogetic materials not responsible anymore because of the time it took for people to end up dead?
Same thing with tobacco manufacturers once they had the scientific reports that tobacco caused lung cancer. Were they not responsible for continuing to sell their product without warning people of the dangers just because it took decades for the users of their product to die?
Whilst they didn't mean to kill people, they knew it could and went ahead anyway, hence they are responsible - just because it took years and was indirect doesn't reduce the responsability.
There is no doubt whatsoever that the repeal of Glass-Steagal led to the 2008 Crash - it's one of those rare measures where one can show a direct line between that specific piece of deregulation, retail banks engaging in massive speculative investing and them having to be saved as they would have taken depositor's money as they went down: what Glass-Steagal did was exactly to force the banks to keep the retail operations separate from proprietary investment hence with it in place even if the banks had a separate arm doing speculation which failed, depositor's money would never have been at risk and only said investment arm would have gone under.
There is no question Clinton was unaware of the possible consequences of repealing Glass-Steagal because that act had been very explicitly put in place after the Great Crash and the Great Depression exactly to stop another major Crash and Depression, which was widelly discussed at the time.
Clinton was responsible for the direct consequences of repealing Glass-Steagal because retail banks could never had started investing in a speculative way and end up sinking and taking depositors money with them with Glass-Steagal in place since that its purpose was exactly to stop that (and it worked for over half a century) - so it's there's a first order causal relation between the repealing in 2000 and the retail banks starting going under in 2008 - and because at the time he repealed Glass-Steagal he knew it had been put in place exactly to avoid a major Crash and Depression - he both did the deed and was aware of the possible consequences.
The only question there is around it was if he was reckless, deeply incompetent or Machiavelic (if he acted to benefit from it expecting problems would take years to come and hence be somebody else's) in chosing to repeal that act which he knew was meant to stop major crashes and depressions and which had worked successfully doing just that for over half a century.
Actions have consequences.
Or do you think the responsibility of a shooter ends when the bullet leaves the barrel of the gun?
For the Economy, repealing Glass-Steagal was the most widely impactful measure taken by politicians in the US since the New Deal and the current situation of a massive property bubble and growing inequality can be traced all the way back to it as a cascade of consequences of that act: the repeal leading to Retail banks going into ultra speculative investing and the overextending of Finance, leading to the 2008 Crash and the need for Government bailouts to save all the bank accounts of common people as the banks that were sinking due to their own speculative investing were (because of there being no Glass-Steagal) taking down retail customer funds with them, leading to the slowest recovery from a Crash ever and ultra low interest rate policy which was supposedly temporary but really wasn't (interest rates are still below the historical average), which in turn pumped up of massive bubbles in housing because of that ultra-cheap money and continuation of speculative investment by Retail banks.
Clinton and the Democrat Congressmen's actions (as I stated elsewhere, fully supported by the Republicans, who if I remember it correctly wanted even more derregulation of Finance) directly led to the present situation of empoverishment of all layers of American society except the top (who have become far richer, the higher they are the more so) and probably also to Trump getting elected because of so many desperate drowning people trying to grab any perceived buoy ended up voting for the biggest scammer of all because he doesn't sound like a mainstream politician.
Whilst I seriously doubt that Trump was the result Clinton expected when he repealed the Glass-Steagal, he was the one who started the chain and before doing so he was definitely warned that removing the main regulatory protection on Finance put in place after the Great Depression to stop a similar Crash and Depression from happening again was going to have nasty consequences.
For the benefit of a few Finance fatcats (for which he got massively rewarded for it with things like millionaire gigs in the speech circuit, as did his wife) Clinton fucked up massively and hundreds of millions now suffer for it, so let's not laud that disgusting sold out politician a great statesman and steady hand steering the Economy.
That's up to him, his wife and his mistress.
I only care about his track record when it applies to the Economy.
Clinton repealed the Glass-Steagal Act, inflating a massive bubble (especially in Finance) which blew up in 2008.
If you're going to laud him for the positive effects of the bubble he inflated, then it's only fair to criticize him for the ultimate result of his bubble-pumping policies, which wiped out all the gains from the bubble.
The 2008 Crash was the direct result of Clinton's repealing of the Glass-Steagal Act (with the full support from the Republicans, so I'm not actually excusing them).
In the process of pointing out just how bad the Republicans are for the Economy, let's not excuse the Democrats so much that it turns into whitewashing.
Whilst composition over inheritance is indeed the way to go (and if you read the original Design Patterns book, it's part of the things they talk about in the beginning well before they go into patterns), ECS just distributes the data all over the place which tends to create bugs due to implicit dependencies that are not very visible because things are distributed (so when you change something, other stuff elsewhere might break).
The point of ECS is performance with large numbers of similar entities, rather than being a good architecture in software engineering terms (i.e. resilent to bugs, not brittle when changed, easy to understand as whole and so on).
My impression, having come from totally different areas of software development (server-side, web, smartphone apps, desktop apps) is that Game Development isn't all that sophisticated in the terms of Software Architectures, maybe because it's too close to the metal, too concerned with performance and mainly the playground of young devs who, frankly, lack the experience to have reached the level of being aware of software development as a process and how to design and develop software in such a way as to improve the outcomes of that process.
I meant it as an iOS or Android app.
IMHO, Liberals (in the American sense, rather than the pure ideology) change the rules to reduce and even remove viable choices, whilst Fascists just directly do the chosing for you.
In other words, Liberals take the posh, pressure-based path to constrain others so that they ultimatelly do what's best for the Liberal leadership (or suffer if they don't), whilst Fascists just use Force directly or at best with a thin layer of social acceptability in the form of Laws that make your not doing what they want illegal.
Because of the far more covert nature of the way Liberals force choices on others and the many layers than compose the system they use to do it, unlike with the straightforward lasso-on-the-neck of Fascists many people literally can't see that they're being corralled by Liberals into specific choices and think that with Liberals they're free.
As a Leftwinger (real one, not the American notion of left-of-Trump being Leftwing) this is something I've though about a lot.
For example, most people are driven to some level or other by Greed: for example, if you think about it, when people from the "Working class" demand things for the "Working class", are they driven by a pure desire for equality or is it really about benefiting themselves as members of the "Working class"? Ditto for "Positive Discrimination" being demanded by people who will benefit from it - is it really about equality or is it Personal Upside Maximization hidding behind the "group"?
Choices driven by Greed above all often collide with the whole "Greatest good for the greatest number" principle of the Leftwing.
Anyways, "screw you, my moral standpoint is different so I don't care about what you say" as an absolute rule is how the Left fragments, so indeed an absolutist take of "If your Moral standpoint is not exactly the same as mine I won't listen to you" is self-defeating in the strategical sense.
Then again, going totally in the opposite direction - i.e. no people should be shunned due to their Moral standpoint - also ends up with some weird results: if somebody has a moral standpoint that "Slavery is just the Weak being put in their proper place by the Strong, and as Strong people they're superior hence have a right to chose what others do" (I almost puked a little in my mouth writting this), should we really try to do anything else than shun people whose moral standpoint is that?
Personally my compromise is that some Moral standpoints are unnacceptable and those who hold them do not deserve any attempt at finding a middle point between me and them - in other words, even in Morality there are red lines - and whilst we should indeed listen to those who are on the right side of those red lines even if we don't quite have the same Moral standpoint, those on the wrong side of those red lines are beyond salvation and not worth the effort.
The correct way is to judge people for what they activelly support, which also means not slimly implying that by not supporting one side people implicitly support the other - it's a perfectly valid position to not like any of the choices one has been presented with and thus chosing "None of the above" rather than A or B.
"If you're not with us you're against us" is just about the most typically Fascist (and, more in general, authoritarian) argument there is, so those doing it don't be surprised if, even if you're wearing a different mask than outright-Fascist and claiming you have the moral high ground, you're judged as somebody who thinks along the same lines as Fascists rather than along Democratic or Humanitarian lines.
Mind you, the quoted post is impeccably fair in that sense, but here in Lemmy there's a lot of people who, unlike that quote, stray beyond blaming people for their choices into parroting authoritarian logic that blames people for non-choices.
Then you know nothing of Finance, Economics or how Sector Regulation works - the full impact of regulatory measures on those things takes years or even decades to unfold: we wouldn't have had 5 decades of Neoliberalism if the full effects of unlimited deregulation were manifested immediately after a regulation is removed.
I was in the Finance Industry when the 2008 Crash happenned and most of what went wrong then would not have been possible if the Glass-Steagal act was still in place, so much so that after the Crash a weakened version of that act was put back in place, only to be thrown out again by Trump during his first presidency.
Clinton knew what the Act was for (plenty of Economists very publicly explained it back then) and why it had been put in place and he repealed it anyways because the Finance Industry could make more profits without that regulation (which they did, for a time, until the Crash, hence the boom-related suplus you loudly celebrated), all of which is very much the situation you described of, once knowing the long term harmful effects of something (specifically in this case, of removing certain regulations), doing it anyway for the short term benefits (the tobbaco industry got profits in their case, Clinton fueled a bubble and that yielded those celebrated Clinton surpluses, plus he personally got lots of money from the Finance Industry after he retired from the presidency).
His responsability is undisputable in Finance circles and all that's in dispute is how much of the total is his and if he was either reckless ("Conditions have changed so this time it's not going to happen"), incompetent (i.e. literally did not informed himself about the purpose of the Act he was repealing) or machiavelic ("My friends in the Finance Industry will be very thankful if I remove these costly regulations and if something happens it will be well after I'm POTUS and somebody else will get the blame") in repealing Glass-Steagal.