Linux

If there is something egregiously wrong with the premise of what a person is seeking to do, and there are no qualifying statements in their query about why they do in fact need to do this specifiic thing in this specific way, chances are high that they are uneducated about why the premise of what they’re trying to do is flawed ...

You are probably right about this. Still, as I said to another user, I just feel it's a bit of a slippery slope from a stance of concern to full-blown-StackOverflow-ignoring-the-question.

If they really did know what they were doing with regards to doing an otherwise unsafe and/or unsupported thing, or if the restrictions tied their hands from using the obvious replacement solution, it either should have appeared in their question prompt, or it should be in the first replies to the first round of answers.

I can agree with this.

That said, this only applies in really cut and dry cases like this one, where there very clearly is an indisputable thing you shouldn’t be doing, and a drop-in replacement you should be using. The ones I hate are moreso those you may see on StackOverflow where the question is like, “how do I do in JavaScript?” and five of the seven responses including the accepted answer offer a solution in some big dumb framework or lib that they apparently expect you to just incorporate into your project.

Fair enough.

Truth be told, I work in customer service, and have very little tolerance for bullshit, so I'm genuinely surprised to find myself as patient and giving-the-benefit-of-the-doubt as I am being. I guess this thread just reminded me a bit too much of the days of 2015. Lol.

Edit: Shit. Forgot to add the > at the quote at the top. My bad.