About feeling hurt by having your ideas and creations confronted with scrutiny, reason, arguments and being asked to explain the rationale… I don’t normally expect developer professionals to do that. Not because it wouldn’t be human to do so - it is! (And not because there aren’t very good reasons to be considerate, diplomatic as well as kind in many situations.) But because a major part of our profession is about NOT feeling hurt by that. Just like it’s human to run from a fire, a fireman’s profession is to NOT do that.
One of the biggest skill as intellectual, is not knowing most or best, it is to devour the knowledge of - as well as convey to - others, and to speedily and accurately (without distracting irrelevancies) exchange arguments in order for one or the other, or both, to be able to devour available knowledge.
So I simply expect professionals to be professional, and don’t worry about that.
To me a conflict of views in these relatively simple matters (we’re not talking philosophy here) is always a win-win. Either you’re showing me that I’m wrong, and I can be very grateful for not having to be wrong anymore about one more thing (leveling up in life!), or I show that I am right and obviously that is a win (because we can continue doing important stuff based on that, and I was able to contribute by being the source).
The case when there actually is a distinguishable preferred way, and we don’t reach this mentioned outcome, is a failure, a malfunction in our communication.
I consider that a malfunction because we should all strive to be as trained as possible to communicate in this way, it is a prerequisite for effective collaboration. Humanity after all is nothing without collaboration, so it indeed is a virtue to get skilled in it.
I’m actually quite surprised @neo has had to repeat himself several times, almost as he is begging for this communication to take place, and still his arguments are not refuted, and no (substantial) arguments for him to refute are presented. That to me is a failure of what we are trying to do here.
I didn’t think I would need to say anything in this regard because I think @neo, @JoeSmithJr, @Traktion and others have been laying things out perfectly logically to either accept it as is - or if we don’t quite trust their judgement, verify the statements and numbers ourselves. +Not that discussion isn’t needed or good, I just think the discussion has been lacking at best.)
But, I’ll add to that (fwiw), that as having worked in fintech as well, I have no differing view on this than the above guys.
The problem isn’t not rolling over when you think it doesn’t make sense (I don’t do that either, fiercely so when I think it’s important). What you need to do is show why it doesn’t make sense to you (produce counter arguments to be refuted), and preferably show why your idea makes sense.
(Now I know you said early on that you actually were not supposed to spend much time in this topic, argumenting back and forth, so that there is perfectly understandable - but I would have expected that to be used for reason then, like “I’m sorry guys, I do have some good arguments here, I just don’t have time to do this right now.” )
I don’t see any other way forward for productive argumentation:
Either refute their arguments, or produce arguments they can’t refute, or as a last resort bring in someone that you know can do either of those. If not, roll over. That’s what seems sane to me at least, and so that’s how I do it.
(Again, ultimately ending up in failure in communication I consider to be a fundamental lack of prerequisites for collaboration, so I don’t include that.)
There’s beginning to show some arguments in later posts now (more or less refuted IMO), so I’m happy about that 
My 2 cents.
, I think it’s immediately evident what is what when looking at part and fraction, and with single u64 it is a little bit less so. But I don’t think it is worth the downsides.