Nope. My commentary is that programmers are judged by the number of lines of code responsible for actual productive logic; and they are judged for that negatively.
If someone ever wrote something remotely similar, it is now your duty to incorporate their solution into your code, no matter how much of a square peg in a round hole it is. Glue logic, protocol translation, format conversions, abstraction layers, all that decorative code meant to link actual 'cores' of the system together, without doing anything productive, this is treated as something completely free - no matter how much of that you cram into your code, all is good. But if you're to perform an actual calculation, some real processing, the important stuff which transforms what is considered last stage of input into first stage of output, you'd better make sure it's not your code; that it's a library downloaded from a central hub, purchased, whatever. This is taboo, a thing you're not allowed to write yourself. Your code must adapt the raw input to what the library consumes, and what it produces into what the users receive.

The paradigm of not reinventing the wheel has been brought to illogical extreme. Even if you can cobble a fully working wheel together in 5 minutes, no, you must go through the process of creating the specs for the wheel, making a public offer for a supplier of precisely parametrized wheels with set warranty, establish the supply chain, and ordering the wheel from overseas. And then working out the kinks in all that.

It's not about the number of lines of code. It's about the culture that shuns "getting your hands dirty" and writing stuff yourself. And as result we're getting problems like the lpad fiasco, and hardware requirements endlessly climbing because the piece of code that actually does the work is wrapped in 30 abstraction layers that waste resources.

This is the trend nowadays. If you have a choice between writing a 3-line function that does what you need and pulling a library containing that function, loading and instantiating it over a screen of code, massaging the data you have into the format the function provided by the library accepts over another half a screen, then calling that function, then massaging the result back into what format you require - the trend is to do the latter. Because, allegedly, the function in the library is tried and true and tested by thousands of others. Add sanity checking and exception handling (despite the fact the function does its own sanity checking, and all of your exception handling is limited to log and re-throw) and you have 4 pages of bug-prone code doing what you'd have written in 3 minutes, debugged the heck out of it making sure it's safe in another hour and had it take 60 nanoseconds to do this work, instead of half a second.

Some programs just work. They just do everything one needs, have no significant bugs, and "adding features" would mean introducing clutter to the detriment of the base functionality. They don't need updates.

And often apps are "updated" with the change is done against the users' will, and making them much worse.

What's with the obsession about updates? Sure if it's a security vulnerability, yeah, updates are desirable. But if I need a diffuse-light flashlight, an app that fills the display with pure white at max brightness really doesn't need any updates.

Some can't. Some can. Edit button. Moderator action log and people verifying it. Removal of shadowbans. Making chronological order (as opposed to "suggested") the default and people who opted out not having their feeds reverting to "suggested first" every couple weeks. Never mind making the opt-out a human-readable option instead hiding it behind a "sparkles" icon. Consistent, logical rules of account verification.

All technical/organizational solutions to serious social problems. Not a solve-all, cure-all, but making the platform considerably better.

Russia's entire invasion is totally illegal. Even according to Russian law (starting aggression war is illegal. Renaming it to "special operation" is bullshit.)

In Bucha every male in age making them capable of fighting was killed, combatant or not.

Discoveries like a pile of corpses of children with signs of rape. Oldest aged 10. Women kept for a month in cellar as sex slaves - subjected to most depraved tortures.

Intercepted communications of Russian command, endorsing rape and theft of property, giving orders to kill all civilians.

But because the perpetrator has veto power in UNSC "legality of the operation under UN charter can't be determined, legally"

Your attitude disgusts me. You aren't human. You are a disease.

Germany was pretty famous for having some ISPs that take bitcoin in exchange for providing servers and bandwidth, and ask zero questions, including identity of the purchaser. If you run your service over TOR from such a server, the traffic "out in the wild" is very hard to trace back to the physical server, and no-one from the ISP checks what actually runs on these servers, an encrypted VM completely opaque to the provider. So all kinds of illegal content are served, and the don't ask don't tell policy means unless authorities manage to trace given service to a machine, nothing happens. And even if the machine and data on it is seized, there's no easy way to trace it back to the owner, who also operates it over TOR, and who pays with thoroughly anonymized cryptocurrency.

I wonder when ordering a regular meal to your hotel room will result in them bringing the "premium" version but the extra bits being locked in transparent boxes with a digital padlock. Pay extra $30 to unlock your garlic bread, glass of wine and bowl of fruit.

So the emails evaporating from Hillary Clinton's server were Trump's fault too?

Straight up perpetuating lies to basic facts

Like claiming it's plausible the virus originated in Wuhan virology lab?

Like claiming contents of Hunter Biden's laptop were obtained legitimately?

These, who control the narrative control what is considered a lie.

Is it right to mock the triple-vaccinated great supporters of the vaccine, who weren't a high-risk group, announced and tweeted left and right how grateful they are for having the vaccine protection, and then still died of COVID-19?

Pretty much everything other than the giants will get a right-wing bias automatically, as it absorbs users banned by the giants for having right-wing bias.
Twitter in particular is notorious for tolerating left-wing extremism while banning everything opposed to it as hate speech.

Left-wing extremists thrive on Twitter and Tumblr, untroubled by the administration.

"Being white is OK" will get you banned from Twitter for hate speech. "Kill all white people!" won't.

Maybe an Internet's TLD. No such restrictions against intranets.

You just want someone to scapegoat when something goes wrong.

Which is still a vain hope, because 1. You chose the validator, 2. You failed to configure the validator. But hey, actions speak for themselves so no surprise there.

It is trivial; you pay money to someone who has spent the time, effort, and energy to do it right, ...or so you believe, mister middle manager. Expect bug reports within less than a month, users with valid email unable to register or finding wild confabulations within the entries. Because there's a plenty of people who spent a lot of time, effort and energy to write a convincing sales pitch for their system, and what they sell, besides 'address.isValid()' provides 1500 configuration keys to "allow you to fine-tune every aspect of the filter", and in reality shifts the blame for system failure onto you, under pretense of "you didn't configure it right". You're out of money and you're stuck with a validator which is utter trash but you can't even order scrapping it and replacing it with anything else, even a homebrew that would do the thing better, because it's your head on the chopping block for wasting the money if the purchased product is unsuitable. So in the end you look the other way while your devs plug a sneaky bit of code that hijacks the entire filter and runs through a small homebrew that reduces the number of complaints to an acceptable level.