And my personal favourite: "People may think I’m fighting above my weight class, because many of the people I label as clowns are on television and in important newspapers, much like the stars of 'The Bachelor.' "

Uh huh.

"Why does shit like DPDK exist?" I don't know, but I bet you could find out with a little investigation, which might make this sound more like a well-researched position and less like a tantrum.

"people who absolutely insist that the Church Turing thesis means muh computer is all-powerful simulator of everything". Yeaaah...we're done here.

I still mostly abide by that, but I've had an opportunity to write some larger programs for the first time in a few years (a hazard of teaching programming is you find yourself working with pretty small programs), and noticed that the comments started become a part of my conversation with myself. I'd drop in quick reminders for what I intended to do in a function before going moving on to something else. When I came back and then wrote the code corresponding to the comments: well now it's redundant, but it wasn't. I stopped cleaning that stuff up (I'd clean it if I had to present or publish it, of course). The comments kept some context of my thinking when I wrote it, what order I did things in, etc. It would be gibberish for another, but it wasn't for me, especially after a few days, or even longer. (Note: I'm a pretty fast touch-typist, so muttering to myself doesn't invoke much of a productivity cost. I also note that commit messages are another great place to capture that sort of context for yourself, and not using that opportunity is a sin.)

So, I've changed some of my greybeard aphorisms around commenting: "When commenting code, consider the needs of the person who will be maintaining this code. Who will probably be you. Be nice to future you."

You have a bug they want to fix or a feature they want to add and the author/maintainer is not doing it fast enough? Fork away! Submit a pull request! Oh, you don't have the skills/time to do that? Wow, that's too bad. Offer to pay the author! Post a message to the project list or bug reporting tool offering to pay someone to do it for you. Oh, you want it for free? Immediately? You built critical infrastructure around a tool you don't understand and don't have the skills or resources to maintain? You're a parasite, and can be safely muted and ignored.

This is the important bit: If you're afraid the person maintaining your key infrastructure for free might suddenly stop doing that, just take some time to send them a nice note thanking them. Periodically getting one of those in your inbox is remarkably effective in maintaining passion for a project. Find a way to give them a gift. Do they have Venmo/Patreon/Amazon wish list? Use it. Are you a developer or do you employ some? Fix a bug. Say nice things about them in social media. Offer to help pay for the resources to host the project. Send them an effing Starbuck's card with your sincere thanks.

Researcher who threatened Retraction Watch with lawsuit corrects funding source for several papers (https://retractionwatch.com/2013/10/17/researcher-who-threat...)

The argument made in the article seems well-supported, but I'm not competent to evaluate it. Given that this is an un-reviewed letter to the editor from a single (albeit apparently quite well-qualified) researcher, I'm going to wait for more (peer-reviewed) evidence before trying to form an opinion.

If he has indeed 'refuted' Bell's Theorem (and thus undermined the foundations of large swaths of theoretical Quantum Mechanics), one might expect he'd have at least one collaborator, a current research affiliation, and the interest of a journal with an impact factor greater than 2. It's possible he is the mythical solitary untrained genius, shunned by the establishment and producing Nobel-prize caliber research in his basement. That's probably not the way to bet, though.