My argument keeps being “if you have an incredibly complex mechanism working at best marginally worse than an extremely simple mechanism, then something’s not r

My argument keeps being “if you have an incredibly complex mechanism working at best marginally worse than an extremely simple mechanism, then something’s not right with your design”. Regarding Google employees, what I wrote is close to the exact opposite of what you claim above, so… >tech debt is everywhere The point isn’t that there’s a lot of debt there - it’s about the speed of adding new debt vs actual functionality, which in turn comes from mistaking adding complexity for improvement. >unreliable for more than hour You’re talking about availability, aka “appearing to work”. What I’m talking about is reliability, aka “does it actually work”. Not does it fail for more than hour at a time, but how often does it fail at all. You need to count the forced reloads we’ve all learned to do automatically at this point. And I’d definitely remember last time mutt(1) failed on me, and I honestly don’t; I’m guessing sometime last decade. Except intermittent IMAP connection problems… to GMail. (For which mutt already got workarounds; it’s not like anyone expects Google to fix their servers.) (And sure, my mutt was configured some eight laptops ago, but it just so happens it’s the same for my Gmail account.)