Everyone necessarily, axiomatically, thinks that the way they react to things is reasonable.

But not all other modes of existence are automatically unreasonable even if they are different from one's own definition of reasonable.

Even if I would opt to ignore something like that in some paticular case for whatever my reasons are, I would rarely presume to suggest that someone else should ignore something like that for whatever my reasons are.

No, the problem with CoCs is exactly that they are not "just rules".

They are something else hijacking the legitimacy of normal justified functional articulable rules.

So it's only other people who can't criticize others in public, for you it's somehow not "DISGUSTING!".

In fact for you, you can even criticize others who haven't even done anything to you. You can do it as a pure 3rd party bystander. But no one else can do it even in response to direct attack.

Super well considered philosophy there.

Since any such CoC violation is very much merely a claim and not a fact, this should probably be flagged.

I would say incorrect. All that is true is that something is needed, but there is nothing about the problem that requires that particular poor framework for dealing with it.

This whole thread is utterly ridiculous. I can't take anyone seriously who is sitting here saying they can't take someone else seriously over this, or even saying anything at all about it as though it were the tiniest bit significant.

It's like Vance on Zelensky's clothes. Exhibiting high ignorance and triviality while in the very act of presuming to accuse someone else of being unserious.

It's rarely the mature who talk about maturity.

Let me inform you (and anyone else for that matter) that one observer has observed 2 samples of writing today, yours and his, and has formed 2 impressions of the writers, and that yours is not the more favorable. Do with this information what you will.

I have projects that can equally use either a Teensy or a few different Feather boards, and frankly the Feather boards are always the prefferred option beacause:

* assymetrical footprint - the assymmetrical dip footprint means the board has polarity protection. I have hat/receiver boards with zig-zag stagger dip rows that work as free componentless sockets to receive a feather board with pins soldered. The Feather versions are far more convenient and safe since they can't be plugged in any way but the correct way.

* The Feather standard being a standard - ecosystem of compatible boards with compatible footprint & pinout at least for main functions.

* lipo charging circuit and jst plug, the automatic ups functionality, usb charging, removable/replaceable via standard plug

* off-board power on/off - I very much make use of the trick Feather has where a hat can turn the mcu board on/off without being the source of power to the mcu board.

* Perhaps a small detail but Feathers with sd card slots have the card sense pin wired up to a gpio pin while the teensy's do not. On Feather I can have a hardware interrupt fire when a card is inserted or ejected, and I can't do that on Teensy.

* keeping all parts on the top surface - there are other mcu dev boards with some similar functions but they are less convenient to use as a module in a project since they may have buttons, jst plug, sd card slot, or other stuff on both sides of the board, which makes them inaccessible when mounted onto some other pcb.

Teensy has a few points in their favor too but I really value these facets of most Feather boards.

They are also near-IR lights with special filter viewing glass that produces a visible reflection from the camera optics.

If the camera can see you, you can see the flashing even if it's a pinpoint hidden recessed in a shadow behind a crack.

The good ones anyway.