My axes to grind

[tepples]

People on another forum have accused me of having an "axe to grind" when I remind others of philosophical or practical problems in replies to their comments. They've also accused me of actively avoiding keeping my information up to date. Is any of the following seriously out of date?

1. 2-factor authentication on Twitter is expensive because it supports only SMS, not TOTP or U2F, and only one account per number at that.
2. You must be this tall* to port a video game that uses buttons to a handheld platform that North Americans are likely to own. (Discuss in more detail)
3. Games for current generation consoles don't support community-developed mods.
4. There are only an estimated 105.4 million legally distinct musical hooks, and BMI alone controls a tenth of them. (Discuss in more detail)
5. Code signing certificates are still too expensive for hobbyists and largely specific to each platform, especially for driver signing on Windows.
6. Not everybody is in a position to immediately switch to a web host that supports Let's Encrypt.
7. New web browser features requiring TLS (formerly called SSL), such as the Service Workers needed for offline web applications, do not work across a private network.
8. HTML5 Application Cache was deprecated too soon, before Service Workers were ready.
9. Without ads, a lot of websites would go out of business because they're not sticky enough for a monthly subscription to one site.
10. Without JavaScript or WebAssembly, OS-independent rich apps would have to run in an x86-64 VM instead. (Discuss in more detail)
11. Many rural users still can't get wired broadband.
12. Sites are broken in Safari because not every web developer can afford a separate computer just for testing on a 2% browser.

* "This tall" refers to console makers' requirements for financial stability, industry experience, and zoning and physical security of an office, which might block a studio funded as a bootstrapped start-up from porting even a finished PC game to a platform.


EDIT: Struck resolved issues

[Sik]

Disclaimer: I myself say a lot of bullshit =P

Games for current generation consoles don't support community-developed mods.

They still don't for the most part - the console vendors don't like their machines being open like that after all. Some games allow some sort of custom content (e.g. custom maps made with a built-in editor), but nothing anywhere close to the openness PC players are accustomed to. (the fact PC players don't demand all games to be open source is kind of surprising in hindsight, seeing how modders expect to be able to change nearly every behavior)

Code signing certificates are still too expensive for hobbyists and largely specific to each platform, especially for driver signing on Windows.

I don't know the exact costs for this, the problem is more that you're required to do it in the first place. This is even more of a problem for UWP though, because if it becomes the norm then in practice it'll be up to Microsoft to decide whether you're worth making programs for Windows (and running unsigned UWP apps is disabled by default, so most users won't know how to use them).

Not everybody is in a position to immediately switch to a web host that supports Let's Encrypt.

Probably not any worse than with using any other CA. There are still issues with switching to https at all, but I'd rather wish everybody fixed it so we could completely remove support for plain http in browsers for real.

New web browser features requiring TLS (formerly called SSL), such as the Service Workers needed for offline web applications, do not work across a private network.

The problem is more that private networks tend to use self-signed certificates and browsers panic like it's the end of the world (even though it's still safer than plain http, which they don't even complain about). Enforcing CA-based https as some people want to do would break those networks.

Without JavaScript or WebAssembly, OS-independent rich apps would have to run in an x86-64 VM instead.

More likely that we'd resort to another bytecode format =P

Sites are broken in Safari because not every web developer can afford a separate computer just for testing on a 2% browser.

I thought Opera was the 2% browser?

Note that mobile Safari pretty much has to work because it's what comes with iOS, not sure how much it differs from Mac Safari. That said, mobile browsers are so shit at doing even the basics that I'm not even sure if it's possible to reliably make stuff that does not break in some way on them. Probably why many sites still just have a completely separate mobile version.

[lidnariq]

Without JavaScript or WebAssembly, OS-independent rich apps would have to run in an x86-64 VM instead.

More likely that we'd resort to another bytecode format =P

Wait, wait, I know this one! Maybe something like Javascript? But it's not a scripting language... I know, we'll call it Sumatra!

[tepples]

(the fact PC players don't demand all games to be open source is kind of surprising in hindsight, seeing how modders expect to be able to change nearly every behavior)

I see a different reason for demanding that multiplayer games be open source, namely rights to broadcast an esports league's matches. These rights aren't guaranteed with a proprietary game because the owner of copyright in a video game or other audiovisual work has the exclusive right to perform it publicly and can use this exclusive right to play kingmaker among esports leagues that play a particular game. At times, Nintendo, Capcom, Sega, and Blizzard have all had newsworthy legal battles with broadcasters.

But publishers are historically unwilling to fund a fully free game because they'd have no way to pay the developers, and they want to hog the goodwill of the brand that they spent money to market rather than letting competitors produce sequels. Or should games be fully funded through Kickstarter, with a time-delayed release under a license for free software and free cultural works as a stretch goal?

Not everybody is in a position to immediately switch to a web host that supports Let's Encrypt.

Probably not any worse than with using any other CA. There are still issues with switching to https at all, but I'd rather wish everybody fixed it so we could completely remove support for plain http in browsers for real.

The difference is that LE offers 90 day certs, while everyone else is doing 1 year or more. It cuts down on the size of the CRL (both the downloadable one and the one used by LE's OCSP servers), but it's inconvenient for users of web hosts that require the subscriber to file a support ticket whenever the certificate changes, such as WebFaction. (The big reasons I got tangled up in WebFaction in the first place were its support for TLS back in 2012 when many other hosts didn't, and GoDaddy's brief support for the PROTECTIP/SOPA bill.)

New web browser features requiring TLS (formerly called SSL), such as the Service Workers needed for offline web applications, do not work across a private network.

The problem is more that private networks tend to use self-signed certificates and browsers panic like it's the end of the world

That's because most of the time, it is the end of the world. I've seen several public hotspots try to MITM my accesses to Google, Twitter, GitHub, Pin Eight, All The Tropes, SoylentNews, Slashdot, and other HTTPS sites until I agree to the terms of use. But until there's some way to create a PKI within a home LAN, HTTPS won't be everywhere. I'm not even sure you can install a home CA's root certificate on Android without rooting your device (which often involves wiping all data and voiding your warranty). [Update: My sources were outdated; this changed significantly in Android 4.3.]

Without JavaScript or WebAssembly, OS-independent rich apps would have to run in an x86-64 VM instead.

More likely that we'd resort to another bytecode format =P

WebAssembly is supposed to be that bytecode format. But anti-JavaScript diehards would probably reject it for the same reason they reject JavaScript. I guess to them, web pages are supposed to be static, with interaction limited to form submissions and checkbox-hacked collapsing, and applications are supposed to be native and therefore OS-specific. Perhaps one might work around that by making apps for Linux and having users run them in Vagrant, and not making mobile versions at all.

Sites are broken in Safari because not every web developer can afford a separate computer just for testing on a 2% browser.

I thought Opera was the 2% browser?

Opera is about 1% for desktop and mobile combined but can be grouped with Chrome because both use Blink nowadays. Safari for macOS is barely over 2%. As of today, caniuse.com's usage table lists 0.21% on Safari 8, 0.36% on Safari 9, and 1.54% on Safari 9.1. Safari can't be grouped with Chrome because WebKit lags behind Blink in support for newer HTML5 components.

Note that mobile Safari pretty much has to work because it's what comes with iOS

Unless, as you allude, you're developing a desktop site that either has a separate mobile version or isn't well suited for 5" screens and fat fingers at all. Or unless you're intentionally not supporting video playback in Safari due to Apple's refusal to add support for video codecs that can be encoded by free software prior to December 2027 (source). Or unless you're allowing Android users in without charge and paywalling iOS users by requiring them to install a third-party app that uses your site's API. (This can be done with JavaScript feature detection on the device. It'd be dishonest if it needed User-agent sniffing, but detecting required DOM properties is honest.)

lidnariq: Sumatra is already a PDF reader. [/cmtp]

[rainwarrior]

People on another forum have accused me of having an "axe to grind" when I remind others of philosophical or practical problems in replies to their comments.

The accusation is that you bring these things up ad nauseam given only the slightest tangential relevance to the topic; that you're not aiding or contributing to the discussion, but just looking for any outlet to vent about your pet peeves. If you insert the same point ten times in ten different threads, it's value to the discussion is going to fall into doubt.

I will say that sometimes your tangentialisms have a lot of value. I've mentioned before that I think it's important for threads to be able to have some digression. There's such a thing as too much, though, especially if it's repetition of the same digression.

You've made a list, though, which suggests that you're aware of how often you bring up those particular points. So, I mean, this is a place to start if you don't like that people accuse you of "having an axe to grind". Or just keep doing as you do and accept that sometimes others will be annoyed by it. I get annoyed by pretty much everyone here at various times, for various reasions.

[Kasumi]

The problem with bringing up "philosophical problems" is that a lot of the people you'd come in contact with in the circles you probably frequent are trying to solve practical problems.

The way to tell them apart is easy.

"This is going to affect your project."
vs.
"There's an alternate universe where the stars align and if your goal is specifically this, this might affect your project."

If you told me about b, I don't care. It's not a practical problem for me. Not everyone is trying to be on a handheld platform most North Americans own. Not everyone is North American.

Usually when c is brought up, it's also not a problem. Even if it's true, it's not a problem. "I am making a game." "The sky is blue." "Yes. Yes it is. Cool." Just because something is true does not mean it applies, or that it's important, or that it's a problem.

Is d ever a practical problem? I basically can't imagine a situation where you could bring this up and it would be useful information to who you bring it up. (Yes, I'm sure you can find one. And if you try, you're deeply, deeply missing the point of this post.)

I don't think e is a practical problem. I can work on platforms where it doesn't matter, or anything else. Again, this difference is "This will be a problem" vs "If you think about it in this specific way it's a problem."

For i... this is probably true, but anybody you would tell this to probably doesn't actually care. Pick your battles.

l.... hmm... I guess there are people that use some browser no one uses and then don't understand this and complain about a site that doesn't work. But this isn't... a problem. Or one you can solve.

That is that if someone posted complaining that nothing works on Safari, and you posted to remind them why this is... you've done nothing practical. Their problem is still a problem. The website still doesn't work on their browser. Your information doesn't help them with this problem.

Why even spend time presenting information that doesn't help with a problem the user has actually displayed?

[tepples]

If you told me about b, I don't care. It's not a practical problem for me. Not everyone is trying to be on a handheld platform most North Americans own. Not everyone is North American.

Until someone from North America looking for a game to buy finds a PC game and submits a request through the developer's feedback page or on a comment to the game's trailer on YouTube: "Can you bring this game to 3DS?" So is the answer "just make the game for PC and ignore all other platforms"?

Usually when c is brought up, it's also not a problem. Even if it's true, it's not a problem. "I am making a game." "The sky is blue." "Yes. Yes it is. Cool." Just because something is true does not mean it applies, or that it's important, or that it's a problem.

Without mods, there'd be no Counter-Strike. So we can estimate the size of this problem as roughly the same order of magnitude as the number of people who have played Counter-Strike since its release.

Is d ever a practical problem?

It is when you run a risk of being sued for accidentally copying part of someone else's song while writing background music for your own short film or video game, losing the suit, and being bankrupted by damage awards, attorney's fees for both sides, and court costs. I concede that I may have missed your point.

I don't think e is a practical problem. I can work on platforms where it doesn't matter

Until a user of a platform where it does matter finds a device and submits a feedback request to bring support for the device on that platform. So is the answer "just make the device for Linux PC and ignore all other platforms"?

For i... this is probably true, but anybody you would tell this to probably doesn't actually care.

They would care about losing access to information on sites that can no longer pay their server bills.

Why even spend time presenting information that doesn't help with a problem the user has actually displayed?

Because users have displayed these problems. I have run into some of them myself. For example, developers may attempt to work around problem b by shipping on smartphones and tablets, but this often fails. I downloaded the platformer "Pixeline Jungle Treasure FREE" from Google Play Store, and trying to play it using the on-screen gamepad on a Nexus 7 (1st generation) tablet was impractical until I paired a Bluetooth keyboard. And players of Skyrim on PlayStation 3 have run into c, as they lack access to a lot of the mods that make the PC version more enjoyable to play.

[mikejmoffitt]

If you told me about b, I don't care. It's not a practical problem for me. Not everyone is trying to be on a handheld platform most North Americans own. Not everyone is North American.

Until someone from North America looking for a game to buy finds a PC game and submits a request through the developer's feedback page or on a comment to the game's trailer on YouTube: "Can you bring this game to 3DS?" So is the answer "just make the game for PC and ignore all other platforms"?

Your argument isn't wrong. However, the reason people may express distaste with the topics of your posts is that so many of these gripes address hypothetical problem scenarios. Platform openness is a topic deserving of discussion, possibly in its own thread. However, pivoting a discussion or inlining concerns about it in another discussion is not a good way to do it.

Similarly, when somebody is working on a hack of a game, a fangame, etc. bringing up copyright and dangers of infringing on intellectual property has the effect of shutting down the conversation. Again - something worth discussing, and bringing up, but steering a thread towards it that was originally intended for create input is bad discussion manners, even if the intention was to genuinely provide helpful input.

[koitsu]

Paraphrased versions of this and this: learn to stay on target / stay focused on the core topic at hand.

People may say "you have an axe to grind", which is a (badly phrased) version of "are you trying to annoy people or is it just something that comes naturally?"^[1].

Most good-natured people know that it's just a personality trait of yours and that your intentions are positive, but that doesn't change how frustrating it can be during a conversation. I've a feeling it's a side-effect of you having a form of autism^[2] -- and I say that with the utmost respect, no judgement. I like you just how you are.

There's an argument point I'll use during discussions with people when things turn unnecessarily complicated or off-topic: I ask them to be pragmatic. Most of the time this rids the conversation of the ridiculousness and gets people back on track. That said:

Pragmatism is becoming increasingly hard for us "techies" to achieve given the increasingly complex nature of the things we involve ourselves with. It's important to remember that 1) nothing's perfect, 2) it's impossible to solve everything, and 3) one should be willing to make trade-offs (but be aware of what you're sacrificing and weigh the pros/cons). I suggest people see the film The Aviator as an example of what can happen to a person when they start to lose the ability to be practical.

^[1]: I say this because I've been told I have an "axe to grind" more times than I can count, not because of going off-topic (I do that often enough), but because I'm old and jaded with an awful tendency to rant (a trait I learned from my mother). It's one of several reasons why I apply KISS principle so heavily in my life: it helps me stay centred and grounded. In recent days I've been trying to apply this advice (which, for me, takes a lot of focus and effort).

^[2]: I worked for nearly 8 years with a guy with Asperger's syndrome (mild form of autism; still classified as an ASD) who behaved very similarly. I have more stories than I can count, but an epic one involved a 2 month battle regarding timestamps and ISO-8601 compliance (specifically exclusive use of the verbose syntax, ex. YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ss.sTZD in every single application/tool/logfile/etc. throughout our entire platform -- even those which didn't need second or sub-second granularity, nor timezones). He lost that battle, but select tools did use YYYYMMDDThhmm syntax, which was good enough for most of us.

[tepples]

However, the reason people may express distaste with the topics of your posts is that so many of these gripes address hypothetical problem scenarios.

At what point does "foreseeing obstacles while forming a business plan" become "pointless hypothesizing"? Do you have to be Robert Pelloni so you can say "I did apply, and I was rejected"?

Similarly, when somebody is working on a hack of a game, a fangame, etc. bringing up copyright and dangers of infringing on intellectual property has the effect of shutting down the conversation. Again - something worth discussing, and bringing up, but steering a thread towards it that was originally intended for create input is bad discussion manners, even if the intention was to genuinely provide helpful input.

Is it unacceptably hypothetical to say "this other forum was shut down by a copyright owner for harboring similar discussion, and I don't want the same to happen to forums.nesdev.com"? And if not, is that the minimum standard?

[Kasumi]

Until someone from North America looking for a game to buy finds a PC game and submits a request through the developer's feedback page or on a comment to the game's trailer on YouTube: "Can you bring this game to 3DS?" So is the answer "just make the game for PC and ignore all other platforms"?

This is kind of what I mean.

"This is going to affect your project."
vs.
"There's an alternate universe where the stars align and if your goal is specifically this, this might affect your project."

Why not wait until this actual thing happens? That's what makes it a practical thing, and not hypothetical fluff. "But it has happened in the past!" But it may not apply to the people you're actually talking to ever.

Without mods, there'd be no Counter-Strike. So we can estimate the size of this problem as roughly the same order of magnitude as the number of people who have played Counter-Strike since its release.

"This is going to affect your project."
vs.
"There's an alternate universe where the stars align and if your goal is specifically this, this might affect your project."

You can't even be sure if Counter-Strike wouldn't exist without mods. Maybe the people that worked on it would have just done it from scratch. Even if it's true, it doesn't matter.

"Just because something is true does not mean it applies, or that it's important, or that it's a problem."

Until a user of a platform where it does matter finds a device and submits a feedback request to bring support for the device on that platform. So is the answer "just make the device for Linux PC and ignore all other platforms"?

"This is going to affect your project."
vs.
"There's an alternate universe where the stars align and if your goal is specifically this, this might affect your project."

Again, why not wait until this actually happens for the thing in question?

Even if it does happen, I don't have to care just because someone makes a request that I port my game to Sega Dreamcast. If someone specifically asked on a forum what to do when someone DID make a request to port to Sega Dreamcast, then that information might be helpful.

"So is the answer "just make the game for PC and ignore all other platforms"?"

I truly do not understand why everything has to have one answer. As if one answer applies to every project. Maybe I don't care if people want my game on Sega Dreamcast. Maybe other people do. There will never be one answer.

Why do you feel the need to dictate which platforms one should care about?

Why do you feel the need to speak on behalf of people who want my game on Sega Dreamcast? They could ask themselves or again... there is no actual problem.

It is when you run a risk of being sued for accidentally copying part of someone else's song while writing background music for your own short film or video game, losing the suit, and being bankrupted by damage awards, attorney's fees for both sides, and court costs. I concede that I may have missed your point.

That's not practical, though. This is my whole point. "If you walk outside, a meteor might hit you." Yeah. Yeah, sure. I mean, you're not wrong. But... it's not worth warning me about?

It's more likely for me to get hit by a bus than get sued for accidentally copying a song. And if I'm copying a song on purpose, maybe I deserve what I get?

They would care about losing access to information on sites that can no longer pay their server bills.

Those that would care probably already know, and are taking the risk. Maybe it's a bit like how smokers often know more about smoking than non smokers and do it anyway. In this case, your argument is still not useful.

Do you understand that not responding at all is a valid option?

Because users have displayed these problems. I have run into some of them myself. For example, developers may attempt to work around problem b by shipping on smartphones and tablets, but this often fails. I downloaded the platformer "Pixeline Jungle Treasure FREE" from Google Play Store, and trying to play it using the on-screen gamepad on a Nexus 7 (1st generation) tablet was impractical until I paired a Bluetooth keyboard. And players of Skyrim on PlayStation 3 have run into c, as they lack access to a lot of the mods that make the PC version more enjoyable to play.

You realize that didn't answer my question? I don't care if the user has displayed problems. The information you present doesn't actually help the problem, so why do you feel the need to present it is the question?

Because again! It doesn't... help... the problem. "Man, I wish Skyrim worked better on PS3." "Well, this is why it doesn't work well on PS3. If only you had access to these sweet PC mods."

Okay, cool, my problem could have been fixed by buying the game on PC. But I didn't. So I still have the problem. This information doesn't help me now unless I want to buy the game again. Or pirate it. Do you follow why this isn't viewed as helpful?

[rainwarrior]

Do you have to be Robert Pelloni so you can say "I did apply, and I was rejected"?

You've raised argument b here more times than I can remember, and to be honest I don't remember ever thinking it was a useful point in context. This is definitely one of the things I had in mind when I said that if you say something too many times, it won't be received as valuable information.

At this point, yes. I do think you should actually make a game in earnest and apply for developer status before you bring it up again, because the information you have to offer on this subject seems both uninformed and disingenuous to me. Your knowledge on this topic lacks for experience, yet you offer it aggressively. You seem to be actively discouraging people here from believing they can get games published on modern consoles, and I think this is bad advice.

On the subject of Robert Pelloni, he is a horrendously bad example, for many reasons, including:
1. Nintendo's policies are very different now than they were 7 years ago. You'd know this if you applied, or talked to anyone getting indie games published on the Wii U today.
2. Robert Pelloni is an unreliable narrator, and the reasons he thinks Nintendo rejected him are very different than the actual reasons he was rejected.
3. Robert Pelloni was a fool, and Nintendo was correct not to do business with him in 2009.

Developing rights for locked platforms is not a mechanical ritual where you do the right things and they are compelled by God to let you release on their platform. It's a business decision. "We don't believe this will make us money" is the only reason they need to have to reject an application, then or now. If you actually approach them with something viable there's a very good chance they'll want to work with you. A lot of people, like Robert Pelloni, are deluded about the worth of the things they're offering.

[tepples]

"This is going to affect your project."
vs.
"There's an alternate universe where the stars align and if your goal is specifically this, this might affect your project."

I would like to start a project to add the character Little Red Riding Hood to Super Smash Bros. for Wii U. How do I go about getting started? In what format do the meshes, textures, animations, and voices need to be stored, and how do I cause the game to load them?

Because again! It doesn't... help... the problem. "Man, I wish Skyrim worked better on PS3." "Well, this is why it doesn't work well on PS3. If only you had access to these sweet PC mods."

Okay, cool, my problem could have been fixed by buying the game on PC. But I didn't. So I still have the problem. This information doesn't help me now unless I want to buy the game again. Or pirate it. Do you follow why this isn't viewed as helpful?

It's to dissuade people from reflex-buying the console version, so that when they buy the next game in a series known to have annoyances in the vanilla version, particularly whatever The Elder Scrolls VI might be called once it is released, they can plan in advance to avoid annoyances that have been seen in Morrowind, Oblivion, Skyrim, and the Fallout games released around the same time. Or perhaps I should delete my comment because as of today, there exists no console port of The Elder Scrolls VI.

disingenuous

I hope "disingenuous" isn't code word for "please leave". Have I become the next jargon?

[rainwarrior]

disingenuous

I hope "disingenuous" isn't code word for "please leave".

If I wanted you to leave I would say that. I believe I have said something to the affect of "please stay" in other threads.

I don't really expect every word I say in a forum discussion to have some absolute meaning, or be completely accurate to what I say, but I'll try to explain what I meant when I said "disingenuous":

It meant you're someone who's never tried to publish a game with Nintendo, but frequently and aggressively offers advice on how difficult it is.

It'd be one thing if you were mad about it because it happened to you, or even to a friend of yours, but it seems like you're angry on behalf of some imaginary hypothetical person who can't get Nintendo developer status. You're advocating for a ghost. The cause here doesn't appear to be "genuine".

[tepples]

I believe I have said something to the affect of "please stay" in other threads.

I was trying to confirm that this remained the case, as others have complained of my hanging on to obsolete information. Thank you for clarifying.

It'd be one thing if you were mad about it because it happened to you, or even to a friend of yours

I don't know whether this is inappropriately splitting hairs as to the meaning of "friend", or whether it makes me inappropriately biased, but my most recent Skype conversation with Robert Pelloni was on Saturday.

So to further eliminate hypotheticals from the discussion, let me attempt to relate each point to myself or to specific people near me:

a is valid, and relevant to the person whose story I linked. I also got an unsupported carrier message when I tried to link my landline (260-42x-xxxx) to my Twitter account.
b may be obsolete after changes to console makers' policies during the eighth generation.
c is relevant for anybody who has used Brawl character reskins, such as NovaSquirrel.
d Accidental similarity happened to me, where one of the sample songs that ships with Pently 5 had a bass line very similar to that in an existing homebrew NES game. Fortunately, this particular time, I was able to catch myself, approach the producer in question, and clear things up. But I've seen in other cases (particularly Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music) that not everybody catches himself, and other producers may not be as understanding. Or is it encouraged to operate without a plan B?
e I have vague recollections of this happening to some makers of NESdev-related peripherals, perhaps a cart reader or a PC to controller port communication cable, especially now that Windows 10 requires EV certificates for newly produced device drivers.
f This has happened to me: Pin Eight is hosted on WebFaction, which requires filing a ticket for each certificate change. Is the answer to just pay for a certificate if it's cheaper than forfeiting your remaining hosting credit?
g would be relevant to manufacturers and users of IoT devices with web-based administration (which doesn't cover me). But g and h are relevant to developers of web applications who test them on a private home or office LAN before deploying them over the Internet, such as new web applications that I plan to develop privately and deploy on Pin Eight.
i I already get turned away from sites that have put most of their articles behind paywalls because advertisers are unwilling to pay a high enough rate to support open access. This includes WSJ and many scholarly journals. I also get turned away from Forbes and WIRED because they confuse having Firefox's tracking protection turned on with running an ad blocker.
j I have to deal with "wouldn't be caught dead using the malware installation tool known as JavaScript" types on another of these forums. I also have to deal with "operators of web applications written in JavaScript have to earn my trust, and I'm deliberately not giving hints as to how to earn trust" types. I have already deployed a rich web application, unusable without script, on Pin Eight: JSNES Arcade
k My sister used to be in that situation until DSL finally reached her.
l Let users of the minority browser deal with the differences between the minority browser (Safari, Chrome on iOS, and Firefox on iOS) and its closest cousin (Chrome on every platform other than iOS).

Perhaps my deep misconception is to what extent it is encouraged to operate without a safety net.