>The actual identifier should be something like “Open a ticket (imperative, button)”
Or even better: "ui.ticket.actions.open" — trying to shoehorn linguistic categories into translation files is a painful experience, but dumb specific IDs work great and make untranslated captions apparent.
> If a ticket is closed upon completion, it stands to reason that creating a ticket is "opening" it.
That's faulty reasoning.
At the inception of a ticket, it is first created and then opened. It is common to have these programmed to work as a single button push, but they are two actions, and creation always happens first, even when the ticket is not opened. Later, when the ticket is completed, it gets closed.
When you go into your house, an opening must first be created, either a doorway or some other hole in the wall like a window. Then, after the hole is created, you can enter the house.
Building an AST is an easy task once you've figured out your grammar and error recovery mechanism, but these are essentially a kind of language-specific design work that can not be automated.
> Should the internet be a free for all place without moderation?
The better question would be: do you want an arbitrary person (like me) to decide whether you have a right to send an arbitrary pack of bytes?
Neither "society" nor "voters" nor "corporations" make these decisions. It is always an arbitrary person who does. Should one person surrender his agency into the hands of another?
>Neither "society" nor "voters" nor "corporations" make these decisions. It is always an arbitrary person who does.
Except in this case, a corporation (Apple) is making the decision relative to the sexual mores of modern Western society and the child pornography laws of the United States. It's unlikely this decision was made and implemented randomly by a single "arbitrary" individual. Contrary to your claim, it's never an arbitrary person.
And yes, I believe Apple has the right to decide how you use their product, including what bytes can and cannot be sent on it.
>Should one person surrender his agency into the hands of another?
We do that all the time, that's a fundamental aspect of living in a society.
But in this specific case, no one is forcing you to use an Apple phone, so you're not surrendering your agency, you're trading it in exchange for whatever convenience or features lead you to prefer an Apple product over competitors. That's still your choice to make.
https://github.com/seq-lang/seq