Yes, $15 CAD/day to “roam like home”. I have an Orange eSIM that I can keep alive if I use it at least once every 6 months - with a local french number that stays mine. It costs me about $40 CAD for a 30 day - 20GB top up. My wife uses Nomad for data only, we both don’t need local numbers, and it generally costs $12 CAD for 5 GB 2 week top-up.

So I figure about $60-70 CAD for 3 weeks travel virtually anywhere in Europe. Calls and SMS included (for one) without long distance charges. Compared to $630 for “roam like home” for two people from a Canadian carrier - doesn’t matter which one as far as I can tell.

We both recently got new phones to be able to use eSIMs.

And the physical SIMs stay active. So my elderly parents can call my Canadian number if there’s an emergency and it will ring through.

In fact, on our last trip to Rome, when we used a credit card at the hotel, it was refused and then seconds later I got a text from the bank asking for confirmation on my Canadian number. I had no choice but to text “Yes” back, and that single text activated roaming for the day and cost me $15.

I’m not buying that. Slavery has been a staple of civilizations all through history. There’s no universal law of nature that any being has any right to life, freedom or self-determination.

The “moral fabric” isn’t some universal constant either. It too is a function of society. In the U.S., for instance, in 1776 there was no moral problem with slavery. Time went by and morality in the country evolved such that slavery, for many, was no longer acceptable. But it wasn’t that the moral fabric of U.S. society was violated in 1776, it was just different in 1776.

Who knows, in another 100 years people might consider something that is normal today to be some huge violation of something that should be a human right.

Except, that many black folk in the US did not have a right to life or self determination at the beginning. So even these “inherent” rights aren’t so inherent until society agrees to grant/create them.

Not really. Rights are a man-made construct. A social contract that a people agree on. There’s nothing inherent about them.

A society could, for example, decide that certain people had the right to eat human babies, beat their wives. That would be just as legitimate as anything else.

By the same token, a society can decide that certain things are explicitly NOT rights, or to decide which rights take precedence over other rights.

None of this is defined by some divine ordnance, or law of nature. It’s all people.

From a practical perspective, I think that viewing SRP as referring to “direct” responsibility is good enough for making programming decisions.

Take the example from the Wikipedia entry. A module that compiles and prints a report. If that was split into 3 modules: one that compiles; one that prints; and one that delegates to the previous two modules to produce the output, then you would have achieved SRP. Yes, the third does two things, but it delegates them and is therefore not directly responsible for them.

At the same time this holds with the spirit of the official definition. Each module is only responsible to one source of change.

At a certain level of detail, your sources of change start becoming other modules and not users or Product Owners. Then it’s harder to think about SRP the “official” way. But direct responsibility is easier to make decisions on.

If I remember correctly, Objects were introduced in Turbo Pascal 5.5, not version 7.