Many discussions could benefit from the breakdown of arguments into individual premises like "this language supports concurrency natively" and "this language has been in production at X companies for Y years". And, since users can pose counter arguments, it's OK if different users end up at different conclusions.
[1] https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/252854/why-doesnt-s...
Here's an example of debating a technology choice on Sequiturs: https://sequiturs.com/arguments/a-beginning-programmer-who-n...
EDIT: I encountered a transient NET::ERR_CERT_AUTHORITY_INVALID a while back as well, actually. I've just replaced the Comodo cert I was using with one issued by Amazon. Would be very interested to know that it works for you now!
What do you think of the argument format that Sequiturs uses, namely, a series of premises and conclusions?
I think this format has enormous value. It makes an argument much simpler to parse, compared to reading paragraphs, and if I disagree with the argument, I can easily express my disagreement by referencing the specific step(s) I disagree with. It has a lot of other neat advantages, such as allowing arguments to build upon each other, or to contradict each other, very precisely.
On the other hand, we're not all used to breaking arguments down into this format. You might be familiar with it if you took a philosophy or law class, but otherwise there's a bit of a learning curve. I believe the benefits of the format clearly outweigh this learning cost, but it's an open question what the market thinks about that.
