Proof that JS is a right wing agenda

In a JavaScript interpreter the expression 1/x when x is 0 is Infinity. At a first glance, it may seem an innocent bad design choice of ECMA (as has been through the entire lifetime of it) but little people do realize the subliminal political preference underlaid, unless they're Byomkesh Bakshi-grade detective mathematicians that seek truth (like me).

So in today's article we prove that how this "simple" and apparently "bad design" is a pushing a political agenda. I advice the leftists who've been using it; to just simply switch to Python if they care about their ideals and not their web-developer certificate.

Why does it?

I assume you all to have preliminary knowledge of limits, though don't worry its not complicated at all.

We all are aware that right limit of 1/x as x tends to 0 is Infinity; but if we do it from the left it goes to -Infinity.

What did I just say? If we keep reaching towards zero in the X-axis from the positive side (right side in the graph) then 1/x will keep reaching Infinity, but if we do the same but from the negative side (left side in the graph) then 1/x will keep reaching -Infinity.

Now JS doesn't throw an exception ZeroDivisionError like Python or SIGFPE or querying with fetestexcept like C/C++ (another great™ decision of ECMA). Perhaps to make it a bit natural to mathematicians; it evaluates to Infinity.

The "proof"

Recall what I said about limits of 1/x . It has no two-sided limits but two one-sided limits. JS developers chose the right one, but why right one? Obviously because they're right-wing.

So next time if you come around a weird choice of a programming language, don't take it lightly. It always has a subliminal agenda underlaid which deceive the eyes of a computer enthusiast. Politics is everywhere my brother '-' you ain't safe.

Things wrong with OpenSSH

What is SSH?

I don't need to introduce it. Let's be honest, every "modern day" UNIX user knows about SSH. It was basically a security extension to RSH by the OpenBSD people. A user only ever uses SSH to spawn a shell remotely and administrate that particular system.

Though, as we know, every project only ever becomes unnecessarily complex and complicated as time passes; it's like a exponential function of time.

What is wrong with it?

1. People have hard time setting it up.
2. It violates the UNIX philosophy.

Why does it violate the UNIX philosophy? Because it does:

• X11 forwarding (why not consider Wayland?)
  
• Port forwarding
• Tunneling
  
• SFTP
• SSHFS

all of which should be out of its scope.

X11 forwarding can be done without SSH by just setting the DISPLAY variable. This security feature should be in X.org (yes, it's the only implementation of X11) and not in SSH.

Port forwarding (NAT) is done with special kernel level subsystems like netfilter and iptables (Linux) or eBPF or PF in Linux and OpenBSD. It is a low-level I/O job dealt with accounting for flexibility and latency, thus kernel-to-user and user-to-kernel operations induce more CPU and memory usage whereas the kernel would just move the pages around.

Tunneling, solved problem. OpenVPN, IPSec, IKEv2 exist and specialized for the purpose.

SFTP, again; a solved problem. It is solved by FTPS, which uses SSL ensuring backwards compatibility with existing FTP infrastructure.

SSHFS. SSH only ever solves solved problems. NFSv4 mandates security, SAMBA has too, other sophisticated solutions might exist too.

But why are you writing this?

To dump what I've collected and compiled in my mind, I don't really care if anyone reads this or not. Also, there are absolutely no articles criticizing it so someone had it do it.

I'm not a UNIX purist but it's to make you purists (yes, you) aware of this.

What should I use now?

Talking about alternatives, I didn't see any except RSH. If you know put that in the comments.

Other resources on this

1. http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/ssh