For the sake of arguments, let's just assume Windows is perfectly secure. Then if child pornographers or ponzi scammers use direct, encrypted links instead of emails to exchange information, what will the FBI do? Is it reasonable for it to hack into the computer of a suspect to gather evidence? Is it reasonable for it to force Microsoft to implement a hole in their OS so that they can do that? Is it Microsoft's fault for implementing their OS in such a way that it's difficult for the FBI to (lawfully) intercept its users?

Maybe we all blamed Microsoft unjustly, maybe they were forced by law to create all those holes, and maybe they were forced by law to not disclose the fact that they were forced by law to create all those holes.

Isn't any software with a goal of eliminating security holes essentially "specifically designed to disallow lawful intercepts of individuals"? Should all software providers be forced by law to implement backdoors so that the FBI can intercept its communications, just in case Snowden uses the software?

Yes, when your sole motivation to work isn't to provide for the necessity of survival, you can use your influence in more egalitarian ways.

I would argue that actively avoiding to mention a horrible event will cause it to be forgotten and wouldn't help prevent a similar event from happening again.

I feel sick when I see people taking analogies as equations, because I like doing analogies myself. Analogies are intentionally exaggerated (but still being logically valid) to make the point stand out. I thought Hacker News readers were better than that.

You are talking about bias in the "article level". There could possibly be a "topic-level" bias in the article, that is, if one side is currently winning the edit war, and the author (belonging to the other side) tries to spoil that by exposing the tricks used by his opponents. Heck, he could even be trying to conceal his "topic-level" bias by intentionally displaying "article-level" bias in the opposite direction.

Disclaimer: I'm only talking about a possibility. I'm not familiar with this topic. And BTW, I'd say this article is fine if it only has "article-level" bias.

You can have the best of both worlds, just backup your feature head before rebasing.

Search what people are likely to say when discussing this topic, it may be in the form of a question and maybe not.

We have unfortunately already occupied much of our neighbor's garden, should we destroy our farms and cities and return all these land to animals?

Try using promises, and a small utility function to convert library functions that take callbacks to ones that return a promise.