Recently, Rust people have been getting frustrated with C developers who seem to base their entire personal identity on being able to do unsafe memory things. The thing is, this is not a phenomenon unique to C developers, or even software developers in general, although the visibility of the kernel C developers is higher than the average programmer. Most people will be upset about technology that makes their particular skillset irrelevent. This is best summarized by a famous quote:
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it" — Upton Sinclair
Professional C developers who dislike Rust’s borrow checker are almost always extremely good at doing manual memory management while making very few detectable errors (I say detectable because they usually miss some edge-case that turns into a security nightmare 10 years later). They are either paid lots of money to do this specific task, or they have almost no experience doing anything else. They are one-trick ponies, and they are terrified of their one skill being made irrelevent, at which point they will either no longer make lots of money, or not have a job at all.
You could argue that they could simply learn Rust, but you must understand that they believe they are singularly talented at C, which in some cases may actually be true. If they start learning Rust now, they might end up just being an average Rust developer, and the thought of being average is absolutely terrifying to them. This is because it’s percieved to be a loss of social status, which human brains are hardwired to avoid at all costs. It sounds like they’re about to be “deported” because that is the exact psychological response that potentially losing social status provokes.
It’s not just languages, either. When programmers ask “why is this ecosystem such a disaster”, half the time it’s because somebody is getting paid to deal with it. Our industry is trapped in an endless loop of a startup building a new technology on top of some half-broken ecosystem, exploding in popularity, and then everyone using the startup’s technology hires people to deal with the ecosystem it’s built on top of, and those people don’t actually want anyone to fix it or they’ll be out of a job. There is no escaping the fact that, if someone was getting paid to deal with something that was broken, and you fix it, you just made them irrelevent.
In 30 years, when Rust is slowly being replaced by something better, Rust developers will behave the exact same way. Someone will invent a borrow checker that is much more powerful and capable of solving most of the annoying borrow situations that baffle the current Rust borrow checker. Their response will be that this language is for “lazy” programmers, who don’t want to be as precise as a Real Rust Programmer. They’ll complain about things that don’t make any sense because they’ve never actually used the language they’re complaining about. The Rust programmers will sound just as dumb as C programmers do today.
I know this will happen because this already happens in literally every other field in existence. Musicians still sometimes claim that if you can’t play an actual instrument you aren’t a “real” musician, whatever that is. There was a big fight when Photoshop came out because artists complained that “ctrl-Z” was cheating and if you can’t paint on a real canvas you aren’t a Real Artist. It’s everywhere, and it’s universal.
This is not a programmer problem, it’s a people problem. When you look at this through the lens of livelihoods being threatened, you can instantly see that this is all the exact same instinctual human reaction: they have a high status because they are incredibly skilled at a particular thing, and New Thing is threatening to make that skill either irrelevent, or less important, and they don’t want to lose status.
The best defense against this behavior seems to be skill generalization and good self-esteem. If you are confident in your abilities as a musician, you don’t need to worry about people who are good at using a sequencer, instead you might try to team up with them. If you are confident in your general problem solving abilities as a programmer, then the language barely matters, what matters is which language is best suited for the problem at hand.
Software engineering in particular seems to suffer from hyper-specialization, with people having jobs working with extremely specific frameworks, like React, or Kubernetes, or whatever the newest Javascript framework is. It might be that the complexity of our problems are outstripping our tool’s abstractions, but regardless of what the cause is, if we don’t get things under control soon, this will just keep getting worse.
Sturgeon’s law states that 90% of everything is crap. Combined with Hanlon’s Razor, we arrive at the inescapable conclusion that most problems are caused by incompetence. What’s particularly interesting is that the number of incompetent people in a system tends to increase the higher up you go. Part of this is due to the Peter Principle, where organizations promote employees until they become incompetent, but this happens in the first place because it becomes harder to measure competence’ the longer it takes the effects of actions to be felt, and as a species we have no way of measuring long-term incompetence. Instead, we rely on social cues, and tend to use whatever our local culture determines is “competent”.
One way to try to address this is to teach better critical thinking, but this almost always runs into fierce objections from parents who don’t want schools to “undermine parental authority”, which is what happened with the 2012 Republican Party of Texas platform (original). This kind of thinking is actually fairly common, and it is not a fluke of human nature - it is a feature.
To understand why humans can be inquisitive and intelligent on an individual level, but follow arbitrary and sometimes counterproductive rituals on a cultural level, you must understand that our ancestors lived in epistemic hell. My favorite example is the tribe that had a very long and complicated ritual for preparing manioc, which contained dangerous amounts of cyanide:
In the Americas, where manioc was first domesticated, societies who have relied on bitter varieties for thousands of years show no evidence of chronic cyanide poisoning. In the Colombian Amazon, for example, indigenous Tukanoans use a multistep, multiday processing technique that involves scraping, grating, and finally washing the roots in order to separate the fiber, starch, and liquid. Once separated, the liquid is boiled into a beverage, but the fiber and starch must then sit for two more days, when they can then be baked and eaten.
[..] even if the processing was ineffective, such that cases of goiter (swollen necks) or neurological problems were common, it would still be hard to recognize the link between these chronic health issues and eating manioc. Low cyanogenic varieties are typically boiled, but boiling alone is insufficient to prevent the chronic conditions for bitter varieties. Boiling does, however, remove or reduce the bitter taste and prevent the acute symptoms.
So, if one did the common-sense thing and just boiled the high-cyanogenic manioc, everything would seem fine. [..] Consider what might result if a self-reliant Tukanoan mother decided to drop any seemingly unnecessary steps from the processing of her bitter manioc. She might critically examine the procedure handed down to her from earlier generations and conclude that the goal of the procedure is to remove the bitter taste. She might then experiment with alternative procedures by dropping some of the more labor-intensive or time-consuming steps. She’d find that with a shorter and much less labor-intensive process, she could remove the bitter taste. Adopting this easier protocol, she would have more time for other activities, like caring for her children. Of course, years or decades later her family would begin to develop the symptoms of chronic cyanide poisoning.
Thus, the unwillingness of this mother to take on faith the practices handed down to her from earlier generations would result in sickness and early death for members of her family. Individual learning does not pay here, and intuitions are misleading. — "The Secret Of Our Success" by Joseph Henrich
Without modern tools, there is no possible way (other than acquiring brain damage from chronic cyanide poisoning), for an ancient human to realize that every step of the ritual is actually necessary, because without extensive experimentation over many human lifetimes, it isn’t obvious what danger the ritual is guarding against, and if it’s working as intended, no one will have seen the danger or be able to know about it in the first place! It seems that evolution always kept around enough sacrificial intelligent humans to tinker with new possible rituals, but always ensured that the majority of the population would obey the safe, known ways of doing things, without questioning them, because trying to rationally evaluate an opaque ritual meant death. Not even the culture itself knew what disaster or point of failure the ritual was actually preventing, only that it kept them alive. Religion is simply a convenient way of packaging rituals; if you look in the rules set out by many ancient religions, a lot of them start looking like “how to run a functioning society” and include things like “keep your toilet clean”. They got popular because they worked, we just had no idea why and in many cases couldn’t have possibly figured out why with the technology at the time. Even worse, if you got it wrong, it could take you decades until you finally manifested an affliction that actually started causing problems.
This is the core evolutionary drive behind religion and conservative mindsets, where obeying authority is paramount to survival. In modern times, we could communicate to our children why doing a particular thing is bad, because we know the entire chain of cause and effect. Just a few hundred years ago, we couldn’t even do that! A famous example is the effort to get iodine added to salt. Doctors didn’t resist the idea of adding iodine to salt for no reason, they resisted it because at every dosage amount that seemed like it could have an effect, it made people sick! They had experiments on fish that showed that iodine seemed to make goiters go away, but giving people iodine supplements would always make them sick. At this point in time, nobody had any evidence whatsoever that micronutrients existed. Giving people just 150 micrograms of iodine a day, accomplished by evenly mixing tiny grains of potassium iodide into a kilogram of salt, seemed like homeopathic medicine. There was no known substance that had any effect at that little concentration. Only by taking a leap of faith could Otto Bayard theorize that perhaps we needed just a tiny amount of iodine, going against all known nutritional science at the time.
Humans likely evolved culture as an alternative to animal’s reliance on old pack members to know what to do in case an extremely rare but devastating event happened every hundred-ish years. Rituals could seem completely nonsensical inside a single human lifespan, because they addressed problems at a societal level that only happened every 200 years, or slow acting chronic issues. In one case, ancient elephant matriarchs were the only ones capable of remembering waterholes far enough from a drought that only happened once every 35 years. The packs that lost their matriarchs all died because they had lost this knowledge.
We evolved logic to solve problems that had clear first-order effects, but we aren’t very good at evaluating second-order effects. Long lived humans were capable of finding cause and effect links that happened over a human lifespan, but only human culture perpetuating strange and bizarre rituals created out of random experimentation could deal with problems that had very long, unknowable cause and effect chains. It is very hard to tell if the person building your house is competent if the house only collapses every 150 years when a massive earthquake hits. Various cultures have developed all sorts of indirect methods of measuring competence, but many of them emphasize students obeying their teachers, because the teachers are often perpetuating rituals that are critically important without actually understanding why the rituals are important or what they guard against. It is culture guarding against Chesterton’s fence over enormous timespans. Another good example of epistemic hell is how we cured scurvy by accident and then ruined the cure:
Originally, the Royal Navy was given lemon juice, which works well because it contains a lot of vitamin C. But at some point between 1799 and 1870, someone switched out lemons for limes, which contain a lot less vitamin C. Worse, the lime juice was pumped through copper tubing as part of its processing, which destroyed the little vitamin C that it had to begin with.
This ended up being fine, because ships were so much faster at this point that no one had time to develop scurvy. So everything was all right until 1875, when a British arctic expedition set out on an attempt to reach the North Pole. They had plenty of lime juice and thought they were prepared — but they all got scurvy. The same thing happened a few more times on other polar voyages, and this was enough to convince everyone that citrus juice doesn’t cure scurvy.
Our ancestors weren’t stupid. They were trying to find some kind of logical progression of cause-and-effect, but they lived in epistemic hell. This is why cargo-cult programming exists. This is why urban legends persist. This is why parents simply want their children to do as they say. This is why we have youtubers chastising NASA for not reading their own Apollo 11 postmortem. This is why corporate procedures emphasize checking boxes instead of critically examining the problem. When your cause-and-effect chain is a hundred steps long and caused by something 5 years ago, economic pressure incentivizes simply trying to avoid blame instead of trying to find the actual systemic problem. The farther up the chain of management a problem is, the longer it takes for the effects to be felt, and the worse we get at finding the root cause. Software engineering has the same issue, where incompetence may only cause performance issues years later, after the original coder has left, and the system has scaled up beyond a critical breaking point. This is why we still don’t know how to hire programmers.
Only in the modern era do we have the necessary technological progress and the historical records to be able to accurately evaluate the usefulness of our rituals. Only now can we watch chemical reactions happen at an atomic level. Only now can we have Just Culture and blameless post-mortems that allows identifying actual systemic failures. Only now can I watch a YouTube video explaining how to go from a quantum simulation of particle collisions to a dynamical fluid simulation. Only now can I watch a slow-motion capture at 200000 frames per second to see exactly how a tiny filament explodes into hot globules that then fly into a nest of zirconium filings and set it aflame exactly where each one lands.
The engineers who invented these flashbulbs couldn’t see any of this. They had to infer it from experimentation, whereas I can just watch it happen and immediately understand exactly what is going on. We live in a pivotal moment of human history, on the cusp of being able to truly understand the entire chain of cause-and-effect for why things happen. We have the ability to measure events with unprecedented accuracy, to tease out tiny differences that catalyze huge reactions.
Unfortunately, the ability to merely see cause-and-effect is not sufficient when large systems tend to be chaotic. We do not yet have good mathematical frameworks for predicting emergent behavior, and our ability to analyze complex chaotic systems is still in its infancy. We know that large groups of humans consistently display emergent behavior, such as crowd dynamics closely following the equations of fluid dynamics. Likewise, large human organizations are themselves largely emergent behavior, and we never really understood how they were working in the first place. Organizational competence, and coordination problems in general are our modern epistemic hell, and it means there is no easy way for us to address the failure of our institutions, because we still have no holistic way to analyze the effectiveness of a given organization.
We are tantalizingly close to grasping the true nature of reality, to having the machinations of the universe laid out before us, but we are still missing the tools to fully analyze subtle patterns, to lift a whispered signal out of the thundering noise of spacetime. There is simply no escape from emergent behaviors evolving out of chaotic systems. Until we have the means to analyze these kinds of complex systems, we will forever be at odds with our nature, still tempted to cling on to superstitions of old, because long ago, that was the only thing that kept us alive.
I remember growing up with that same old adage of how you could be the next scientist to invent a cure for cancer, or a solution to climate change, or whatever. What they don’t tell you is that we already have solutions for a lot of problems, we just don’t use them. Sometimes this is because the solution is too expensive, but usually it’s because competing interests create a tragedy of the commons. Most problems in the modern age aren’t complicated engineering problems, they’re the same problem: coordination failure.
It was recently unveiled that basically every single UEFI SecureBoot implementation ever made can be bypassed with a malicious image file. This means that any manufacturer that allows the user to customize the boot image is now vulnerable to a complete bypass of SecureBoot and Intel Boot Guard. Luckily, the fix for this is pretty simple: don’t make the logo customizable. But how did something this absurd happen in the first place?
The results from our fuzzing and subsequent bug triaging unequivocally say that none of these image parsers were ever tested by IBVs or OEMs. We can confidently say this because we found crashes in almost every parser we tested. Moreover, the fuzzer was able to find the first crashes after running just for a few seconds and, even worse, certain parsers were crashing on valid images found on the Internet. — binarly.io
It’s pretty obvious what happened, actually. The image parsers were written with the assumption they’d only ever need to load an image file provided by the manufacturer. When this assumption was violated, all hell broke loose, because we don’t test software anymore. None of this happened because engineering is hard. None of this happened because of some tricky, subtle bug. It happened because the people writing the image parsers made an incredibly stupid mistake and then didn’t bother testing it, because the software industry doesn’t bother with QA anymore. Thus, there was no swiss cheese. There was just one slice of cheese with a gaping hole in it, because it turns out that some manufacturers decided to let users customize their boot image, thinking it would be harmless, and that by itself was enough to wreak havoc.
Every layer of this problem is a different flavor of coordination failure. No one on the team who implemented this either thought that there might need to be a warning about untrusted images, or whoever did bring it up was ignored because it was supposed to be handled by another team. Except whoever was supposed to put in a warning about this either wasn’t told, or buried it inside a technical document nobody ever reads. The vendors who decided to implement user-customizable boot logos didn’t ask whether this would be a problem, or weren’t told about it.
And nobody, not a single layer in this clown train, implemented a proper QA or pentesting process that could have caught this bug, because we just don’t bother testing anything anymore. Our economic incentives have somehow managed to incentivize building the worst possible piece of shit that still technically works. We know how to avoid this situation. We have decades of experience building in-depth QA processes that we are simply ignoring. We could fix this, we just don’t.
This is not exclusive to software, as this fantastic video about the popcorn button explains. Our economic race to the bottom has been sabotaging almost every aspect of engineering in our society. To save a few cents per microwave, the cheap microwaves don’t include a humidity sensor and then lie about having a popcorn button when it can’t actually work properly, which leads to everyone saying “don’t use the popcorn button” and now nobody uses the popcorn buttons even on microwaves that actually have a humidity sensor and a working popcorn button. The cheapskates control the supply chain now. They have pissed in the proverbial pool, and if this sounds familiar, that’s because it’s a classic example of the Tragedy of the Commons.
Except, that’s not an excuse. What’s truly absurd is that the tragedy of the commons isn’t inevitable. We know this because ancient human tribes managed to navigate responsible utilization of common resources all the time. It has no historical basis whatsoever. The tragedy of the commons only happens when you have a total failure of collective action. It is the original symptom of societal enshittification.
[...] many nomadic pastoralist societies of Africa and the Middle East in fact "balanced local stocking ratios against seasonal rangeland conditions in ways that were ecologically sound", reflecting a desire for lower risk rather than higher profit...
We actually have a cure for blood cancer now, by the way. Like, we’ve done it. It’s likely that a similar form of immunotherapy will generalize to most forms of cancer. Unfortunately, the only approved gene therapy we have is for sickle-cell disease and costs $2 million per patient, so most people in America simply assume they will never be able to afford any of these treatments, even if they were dying of cancer, because insurance will never cover it. This is actually really bad, because if nobody can afford the treatment, then biotech companies won’t bother investing into it, because it’s not profitable! We have built a society that can’t properly incentivizeCURING CANCER. This is despite the fact that socialized healthcare is a proven effective strategy (as long as the government doesn’t sabotage it). We could fix this, we just don’t.
Some people try to complain that this happens because democracy is hard, or whatever, and they’re also wrong. We know exactly what’s wrong with our current voting systems and CGP Grey even put out a video on it 13 fucking years ago. It inevitably results in a two-party system, because strategic voting is rational behavior, and you can’t break out of this two-party system because of the spoiler effect, and the solution is Ranked Choice Voting (or the Alternative Vote). If you want to go further and address gerrymandering you can use the Single Transferable Vote. All of these better systems were proposed decades ago. We have implemented exactly none of them for the presidential election (except for Maine and Alaska). In fact, America still uses the electoral vote system, which is strictly worse than the popular vote, we all know it’s worse, and we even have a potential solution but we still can’t get rid of it due to counterproductive societal interests.
We HAVE solutions for these problems. We just don’t use them. We could be running fiber-optic cable to every house in America, and we even know how much it would cost. We just don’t because we gave the money to corporations who then used none of it and instead paid themselves huge bonuses. We know that automation is chipping away at low-skill jobs, which means our workforce needs to be better educated, and that providing free college to everyone would be a good idea, we just don’t. We know how to build interstate high-speed commuter rail, we just don’t (although Biden is trying). We could fix everything, we just don’t.
We have no excuses anymore. None of these are novel or difficult problems, not even the tragedy of the commons. We can do better. We don’t need AI to fix things. We don’t need new technology to solve these problems. We already know how to do better, we’ve just dug ourselves into a cooperation slump that’s so bad we can’t even implement solutions we already know about, let alone invent new ones. We’re in this hole simply because society is run by people who are incentivized to sabotage cooperation in the name of profits. That’s it.
It’s January 1st of the new year, and with all these people wishing each other a “better year”, I am here to remind you that it will only get worse unless we do something. Society getting worse is not something you are hallucinating. It cannot be fixed by you biking to work, or winning the lottery. We are running on the fumes of our wild technological progress of the past 100 years, and our inability to build social systems that can cooperate will destroy civilization as we know it, unless we do something about it.
We live in what is perhaps the most critical turning point in all of human history, and we’re on a ship that has drifted far off course. The rapid current of technology means that we are swept along faster and faster, making it exponentially harder to steer away from the icebergs ahead of us. We must address our coordination failures. We must build systems that foster better cooperation, or this century won’t be a turning point for humanity, it will be the end of humanity.
"All that would remain of us would be a thin layer in some future rock face. This is the future we must avoid at all costs." — John D. Boswell (melodysheep)
I originally posted an even more snarky response to this, but later deleted it when I realized they were just a teenager. Kids do not have decades of experience with buggy drivers, infuriating edge-cases, and broken promises necessary to understand and contribute to the underlying debate here (nor do they have the social context to know that Xe and I were just joking with each other). Of course, they also don’t know that it’s generally considered poor taste to interject like this, as it tends to annoy everyone and almost always fails to take into consideration the greater context in which someone might be using Windows, or Mac, or TikTok, or Twitter, or whatever corporate hellscape they are trapped in. The thing is, there’s always a reason. You might not like the reason, but there is usually a reason someone has locked themselves inside the Apple ecosystem, or subjected themselves to Twitter, or tried to eke a living from beneath the lovecraftian whims of YouTube’s recommendation algorithm.
People can only care about so much.
They can’t care about everything. You might think something is important, and it probably is, but… so is everything else. Everything matters to someone, and everything is important to society in general to some degree. Some people think that YouTube isn’t very important, but they’re objectively wrong, as YouTube creators reach billions of people. They change people’s lives on a daily basis. We could argue about how important art and music and creativity is to society, yet observe that our capitalist hellhole treats creatives as little more than wage slaves, but then we’d be here all day.
As this blog post bemoaning the loss of Bandcamp explains, They Can And Will Ruin Everything You Love. The only thing that is important to the money vultures is… money. The only people who can build another Bandcamp are people who believe it’s important. I particularly care about the Bandcamp debacle because one of my hobbies is writing music, and I prefer selling it on Bandcamp. If Bandcamp dies, I will no longer have anywhere to offer downloadable lossless versions of my songs. Everything has devolved into shitty streaming services, and there’s nothing I can do about it. I’m too busy fixing everything else that’s broken, there’s no time for me to build a Bandcamp alternative and I’m terrible at web development anyway. Don’t get me started on whether the new solution should be FOSS, because some people believe FOSS is important, and they’d be right! Just look at Cory Doctorow’s talk about enshittification and how proprietary platforms are squeezing the life out of us.
Everything is important!!!
…But I can’t care about everything. You can’t care about everything either, you have to pick your battles. No, that’s too many battles, put some back. That’s still too many battles. You only have 16 waking hours every day to do anything. You have to pick something, and everything you care about has a cost. When everything is important, nothing happens. No websites are created. No projects are built. No progress is made. We simply sit around, bikeshedding over whose pet issue is the most important. There are always trade-offs, and sometimes you can make the wrong ones:
If I had a dollar every time I saw an "open source" project vaguely recreate a handful of surface-level features of some commercial solution then go "there you have it folks, YOU'RE FREE" while Nothing Actually Works, I would be able to, like, pay rent with it.
As the corresponding blog post later elaborates on, when you are 19 / still a student / unemployed, time is all you have to spend. It can be easy to forget how valuable time is to some people. Even if I won’t touch Apple devices with a 10-foot-pole, I can understand why people use them. If all your use cases fall inside Apple’s supported list of behaviors, it can be great to have devices that just work (assuming you can afford them, of course). On the other hand, while I prefer Windows, I know many people who use Linux because Windows either won’t let them do what they want, or literally just doesn’t even work. They are willing to put in the time and effort to make their linux machines work just the way they want, and to maintain them, and occasionally do batshit insane source-code patches that I hopefully will never have to do in my life, because it’s important to them.
Back when I was still writing fiction, I got a great comment from an editor who said something along the lines of “writing should be fun, you should only pursue perfection as far as you enjoy.” You can spend your entire life chasing perfection, but you’ll never reach it, and at some point you have to ship something. I’ve been trying to finish up some songs for an album recently and I’ve had to rely on formulaic crutches more than I want to, because at the end of the day, it’s just a hobby, and I simply don’t have the time to be as experimental as I want. My choice is to either release an okay song, or none at all. You can tell where I was hopelessly chasing an unattainable goal for over two years when my output completely stops:
Everyone has to make trade-offs, and it can take time to figure out which ones are right for you. Not everyone can contribute to your particular social cause. When you ask someone to care about something, you are implicitly asking them to stop caring about something else, because they have a finite amount of time. They can’t do everything. In order to help you, they must give up something else. Is it grocery shopping? Time to cook? Time to sleep? A social gathering? Playtime with their children?
By no means should you stop asking people to care about something, that part is kind of important. Raising awareness allows individuals to make informed decisions about what trade-offs they are making with their time. However, if someone says they aren’t interested in something you care about… it’s because they have different priorities, and the trade-offs didn’t make sense. Maybe they care more about adding a feature to a 50 year old programming language, and thank goodness they did, because would you have cared enough to put up with this nonsense?
Your time is precious. Other people’s time, doubly so. Mind it well.
Discord’s Recent Announcement made a lot of people mad, mostly because of Hyrum’s Law - users were relying on unintended observable behavior in the original username system, and are mad that their use-cases are being broken despite very good evidence that the current system is problematic. I think the major issue here is that Discord didn’t go far enough, and as a result, it’s confusing users who are unaware of the technical and practical reasons for the username change, or what a username is even for.
There are several issues being brought up with the username change. One is that users are very upset about usernames being ascii-only alphanumeric, presumably because they do not realize that Discord is only ever going to show their usernames for the purposes of adding friends. Their Display Name is what everyone will normally see, which can be any arbitrary unicode. Discord only spent a single sentence mentioning the problem with someone’s username being written in 𝕨𝕚𝕕𝕖 𝕥𝕖𝕩𝕥 and I think a lot of users missed just how big of a problem this is. Any kind of strange character in a username would be liable to render it completely unsearchable, could easily get corrupted when sent over ascii-only text mediums, and essentially had to be copy+pasted verbatim or it wouldn’t work.
However, some users wanted to be unsearchable, because they had stalkers or were very popular and didn’t want random people finding their discord account. Discriminators and case-sensitivity essentially created a searchability problem which users were utilizing on purpose to make it harder for people to search them. The solution to this is extremely simple, and was in fact a feature of many early chat apps: let the user turn off the ability for people to search for their username. That’s what people actually want.
What discord is trying to do, and communicating incredibly poorly, is transform usernames into friend codes. They say this in a very roundabout way for some reason, and they are also allowing people to essentially reserve custom friend codes. This is silly. Discord should instead replace usernames with friend codes, and provide an opt-in fuzzy search mechanism that tries to find someone based on their Display Name, if users want to be discoverable that way. Discord should let you either regenerate or completely disable your own friend code, if users don’t want random people trying to friend them.
What makes this so silly is that nothing is preventing discord from doing this, because you log in with your e-mail anyway! By replacing usernames with display names, Discord has removed all functionality from them aside from friend codes, so they should just turn usernames into friend codes and stop confusing everyone so much. There is absolutely no reason a user should have to keep track of their username, display name, and server specific nicknames, and letting users reserve custom friend codes is never going to work, because everyone is going to fight over common friend codes. Force the friend codes to be random 10-digit alphanumeric strings. Stop pretending they should be anything else. Stop letting people reserve specific ones.
There is one exception to this that I would tolerate: a custom profile URL. If you wanted to allow people with nitro to, for whatever reason, pay to have a special URL that linked to their profile, this could be done on a first-come first-serve basis, and it would be pretty obvious to everyone why it had to be unique and an ascii-compatible URL.
I’m really tired of companies making a decision for good engineering reasons, and then implementing that decision in the most confusing way possible and blaming anyone who complains as luddites who hate change. There are better ways to communicate these kinds of changes. If your users are confused and angry about it, then it’s your fault, not theirs.
