... Until your doctor starts pushing it because he saw it on Joe Rogan.

Pegasus?

I feel like I'd believe it if the headline was about John McAfee.

IMO this perspective that we're all just "reimplementing basic CRUD" applications is the reason why so many software projects fail.

It's only as incomprehensible as you make it.

If there are 6 subfunctions, that means there's 6 levels of abstraction (assuming the method extraction was not done blindly), which further suggests that maybe they should actually be part of a different class (or classes). Why would you be interested in 6 levels of abstraction at once?

But we're arguing hypotheticals here. Of course you can make the method implementations a complete mess, the book cannot guarantee that the person applying the principles used their brain, as well.

It's no more a risk than throwing more developers at it when they're not needed.

“Too many devs“ can, and often is, a significant bottleneck in and of itself. The codebase may simply not be big enough to fit more.

Besides, I still don't see what all those additional engineers would actually be doing. "Responding to incidents" presupposes a large number of incidents. In other words, the assumption is that the application will be buggy, or insecure enough, that 30 engineers will not be enough to apply the duct tape. I stand by the claim that an application adhering to modern standards and practices will not have as many bugs or security breaches, and therefore 30 engineers sounds like a completely reasonable amount.

Even if you have a full-time role for continuously auditing the infrastructure (which I would say is the responsibility of either a security officer or a devops engineer), you still didn't show how that needs a 15-person team, and an otherwise-untouched infrastructure should just keep on working (barring sabotage), unless someone really messed something up.

If CI builds or deployments keep randomly failing at your place, that's not an inescapable reality, that's just a symptom of bad software development practices.

This sounds like the devs are personally, sword and shield in hand, defending the application from attacks, instead of just writing software which adheres to modern security practices, listening to the Security Officer and occasionally doing an audit.

Ah yes, advocating for basic human dignity is now "not understanding basic ideas about economics", and none of the SIX different solutions I provided (which I didn't invent myself, btw) could ever work in any capacity.

I won't be continuing this conversation, as it is clearly not productive.

No, you're claiming that that's what I'm talking about.

What I'm saying is that making density even higher is not the solution to the housing problem. There are other, better ways of making houses more affordable than forcing people to live elbow-to-elbow with their neighbors.

Sure, you keep telling yourself that over the sound of denying the Tiananmen Square massacre, cozying up to Russia, everything about Taiwan, the Uyghurs and the sweatshops.

I'm just going to stay in Europe, if you don't mind.

What you did there is derail the conversation from the fact that you claimed that "The West" is the only source of misery.

You're a troll and I won't engage further.