Your news sources have woefully misinformed you. Trump's argument is that it's not enough to be born here, you have to also be a charge of the country:
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Note the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Trump's argument is that people born in America to tourist parents here for a few weeks (for example) aren't subject to the jurisdiction of America. It's a valid argument to make, even if you come down on a different side. Even the author of the 14th amendment said that was the point of that clause. Even in logical terms it makes sense: You can't just let anyone in to give birth and then collect benefits; it's unsustainable.
However, this case wasn't about citizenship. It was about the broader issue of lower courts issuing restraining orders outside their jurisdictions. It's a recipe for chaos. There's a reason why there are multiple jurisdictions, and courts are limited to their jurisdictions. What happens when two lower courts issue conflicting nationwide orders? The only court in the US that has jurisdiction over the entire country is the Supreme Court. This was a losing battle.
There's a right way and a wrong way to go about addressing problems. Court cases are sometimes more about the core issues involved than the concrete circumstances. Sure, birthright citizenship was the reason for the suit, but the core issue was judicial overreach. Don't get mad because the way your side was "winning" was by cheating, and they were stopped. Try having an actual good argument, and doing things the right way by arguing the actual case in a court.
Don't forget the 60+ rules they changed to keep RFK from winning the primary. Basically what they accuse Putin of doing to secure his election wins. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFjZZjP25jk
Um, no. In general, if you tell someone to stop messaging you, they get to send one more message to react to that and tie up the conversation. "OK. You still haven't addressed points A, B, and C, so I still disagree. Let's wrap it up here then." That's perfectly reasonable and polite.
>Now you need to go through _every_ other language which has _ever_ been used in human history and repeat that process for every combining character. Note also that in some languages it's valid to keep stacking a fair number of combining modifiers so you'd need to cover every permutation allowed in each of them, and spend a lot of time working with linguists and classicists to make sure you weren't removing obscure combinations which are actually needed.
Perhaps this is just my ignorance talking, but it can't be that many permutations, can it? Somebody linked to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zalgo_text, which I doubt anyone would seriously want to enable. There's, what, maybe 3-4 marks typically added to chars in the most complex of cases, mostly for vowels, like Vietnamese. With 4 billion code points to work with, that seems doable. We could just throw in all permutations, regardless of past utility, to accommodate future expansions of acceptable marks. Chinese has, what, 10K chars? It doesn't seem like a big deal for Latin-based chars to have a similar set size when accounting for all mark variations.
>but means all of your documents require substantially more storage than they used to.
Good point! But that comes down to a trade-off analysis between design and space. High 32-bit code point values are meant to be used too, and not shied away from.
go.mod lists minimum versions. Minimum Version Selection may increase the versions used as required by other packages in the build. go.mod isn't a lock file.
>Reversing a string is a useless operation in the real world
I'm not sure why you focused on this one example, which was just meant to indicate the nature of the issue, not cite a broad concrete problem. There are plenty of situations where you'd want to operate on graphemes, not code points, like deleting the previous grapheme in a text editor. It would certainly help programmers write correct code if the two were the same.
>doing away with combining marks and encoding everything as precomposed would be impossible because you cannot have a definitive list of every single combination of letters and diacritics that may mean something to someone
It seems to me it would be trivial to enumerate these combinations, and assign code points to them. For example, the Germanic umlaut is only used with vowels, so that's at most 5 code points.
>Why would your data structure make that easy to do?
Reversing a string merely indicates the problem. There are many cases for operating on graphemes instead of code points. For example, deleting the previous grapheme in a text editor when pressing backspace/delete. I think most programmers assume they're dealing with graphemes when they're actually dealing with code points. See, for example, the rune type in Go.