For humans, elephants are write-only memory.

You don't need to undo the abstraction, just opt out: Fork the shared artifact and modify or rewrite the copy (prune useless parts) as you need.

People often forget "copy-on-write". Coupling doesn't have to be permanent. If refactor to create a sahred component, and then you want to modify a shared component to help one client, you can fork it -- it's not worse than simply not having created the shared component in the first place.

In my experience people will most likely just hack the shared component by adding awful arbitrary if-statements or other such hacks, rather than fork the shared component. This is the path of least resistance. Once this happens a few times that shared component begins to be seen as a central component and is quite a complicated mess.

Well, after enough settings are added, take a look at your components, and define a clearer 2.0 version of them.

When systems need to use newer functionality, port them to the new components.

I've had a mixed experience with this, but at some point you get the API right, and then it works.

People tend not to do this when the original already handles many cases. If half the copied code is dead on arrival, it tends not to be copied.

But often the fork happens too late, after the first few differences have been creatively shoehorned into the shared code. The resulting mess then tends to live on twice after the fork.

In the end, almost every conceptual way to slice up software can be viable if you are good at whatever you do, and terrible of not.

Sunlight does effectively produce radiation burns in your skin, however. And that definitely causes cancer. If we treated sunlight the way we treat barely detectable nuclear radiation, we’d never go outside and we’d use blackout curtains.

How would you feel if your body temperature increased 3%? Barely visible in a 0-based graph.

What is a 3% change in body temperature? From absolute zero?

(My point is that temperature is probably an odd man out in graph terms, our usual reference points are not actually at zero.)

0 is only relevant for linear utility/impact functions The effect of an isotope isn't necessarily linear in its magnitude from 0. The baseline should be something that matters, like maximum safe dose.

If you have a baseline and a scale that indicates an actual effect, then by all means use it. That’s not the case here, nor has it been the case for any other such graph I can remember seeing. Universally, the bottom is chosen as the minimum value in the data being plotted.

That doesn't help people who are getting paid less for doing useful work with the skills they already have.

Businesses don't have to sell stock. They can finance via debt, and many do.

Annual reporting has nothing to do with how people response to the value of a company.

Tyranny of minority isn't better than tyranny of the majority.

housing, food, clothing, and energy must be paid for before the rest of income is invested. 20% annual growth of 0 is 0.