It’s not a disaster, but very annoying. At least now I can just schedule a reboot every 30 days at minimum to keep things running.

I tried to let this pass in the discussion, I really did, but since it came up in various other replies I felt like I just couldn't. We need to get the hell over ourselves as a profession: the fact that someone is an "engineer" says nothing about their communications styles, needs, or preferences as a person.

There is absolutely nothing intrinsically different about two engineers discussing a software codebase and two doctors discussing a surgical plan. Or two artists discussing a mural design. Or two musicians discussing a score. Or two stone masons discussing an arch design. Two professionals are discussing a professional issue as peers, and they are both people, which means they will have preferences about their communication styles and needs and none of that is dictated or predictable based on their choice of profession. I have worked with engineers who valued social interaction buffering comments about their code; I have met musicians who valued just being told what to do better in the next run-through.

If you[0], as a person, value directness, bully for you. Express that need to your peers, ask them to respect it, be prepared to be annoyed when they don't. But don't assume or expect them to assume that that's your communication style — or that it should be your communication style — because you are an engineer.

[0] The reader of this comment, not directed specifically at the person who posted this.

Between that and the good-will they're getting from this move, this is making a ton of life-long Bose fans out of a lot of audio geeks. And if there's a community well-known for creating religions out of their hardware preferences...

Just FWIW, giving up wasn't my point at all. I'm just not particularly optimistic that putting anything in front of the current SCOTUS bench will result in a lot of welcome rulings. That doesn't mean we don't seek legal remedies; it just means we need to plan for them to not work out and act accordingly. I'm heartened by the amount of work people are putting in at the state level and getting appropriately creative with bending the rules — for instance, the recent effort to redefine corporate powers at the state level in order to obviate _Citizens United_.

- CA bans face-masks for law-enforcement

- White House issues executive order requiring face-mask use for all federal law enforcement

- Both are placed on hold pending litigation, allowing the status quo (face-masks) to continue

- Litigation eventually winds up at the Supreme Court

- Supreme Court once again confirms White House can do whatever the hell it wants, Constitution be damned.

I really hate this timeline. Like, a lot.

Too frequently, what people (and clearly the author of this piece) mean when they say "tougher grading" is just a return to forcible bell-curve application and faculty who take out their personal insecurities and annoyance over being required to teach classes on their students. That's not making academics more challenging, it's just torturing statistics and arbitrarily modifying the race-course in order to satisfy other agendas. If you have a good teacher and a good course and more than half the class does well, you should consider making the next iteration more challenging, but you should not feel obliged to fail 10% of them because "there's always a bell-curve", nor should you be using grading as a means to "humble" your students.

I emphasized the word "consider" up there because not every course needs to be a slog up Everest, either — an "intro to X" course might well be a class in which many people do well. Some percentage of them will be people looking to make that their major, so they'll already know enough to be ahead of the curve in an "intro" course. Others will be bright people who learn well and adapt to the material. As someone who teaches classes regularly at the college/grad-school level, I try to make the content interesting and challenging, but if most of my students turn in work that exceeds standards and are coming out with a good understanding of the content, I feel like I've accomplished my goals — academia is supposed to be about learning after all, and they're displaying that they've correctly learned the content I wanted to communicate to them. I do spend time trying to re-work the course regularly (something I'm forced to do much more since the explosion of sites like Chegg...), but past a certain point if something is clearly working, why am I obliged to break it?

It's also important to note that pacifism has been a divisive issue for Quakers from very early times. The play 'Sword of Peace' that's performed throughout the year in Snow Camp, NC, is about Meetings in the US struggling with the question of pacifism vs. the desire to aid their nascent country during the American Revolution. It was a debate for Friends during the US Civil War, both World Wars, Korea, Vietnam, and onwards – one of the tenets of Quakerism is the need to wrestle with those issues by listening to the 'still small voice within' rather than blindly accepting the dictates of others. For many Friends, the threat posed by British colonial rule, the Confederacy, or Nazi Germany simply outweighed the demands of their conscience not to bear arms.

Friends often refer to the anecdote of William Penn asking George Fox (one of the founders of Quakerism) whether Penn should stop wearing his sword because he was now a Quaker. Fox told him, 'wear thy sword as long as thee is able' — meaning he should give it up because his conscience dictated it, not because he was a Quaker.

In seriousness, I agree — it's always odd to see Quakerism discussed in other contexts, as well as running into other Quakers in other contexts outside of things like /r/quakerism or such. I do wish it were a more widespread practice, as I feel like it's such a good anodyne to the modern "I got mine, forget you" approach endorsed by so many megachurches.

Having seen a giant work meltdown stemming from a colleague's Slack DM accidentally broadcast over a Zoom call, I'm always paranoid about it.

As far as subscriptions go, a lot of devs have moved to a subscription-train model, which I really like: you pay for the subscription (which funds development and pays for support), but at any time you can _stop_ paying the subscription cost and keep the version you're currently running without further updates. That's a good trade-off to me, since I can choose to end my subscription without it becoming a catastrophic migration event that has to be carefully planned and executed fully before opting to stop paying.

It's seriously annoying because Arc has been just perfect for the kind of "keep each hat separate" workflows I have going. SigmaOS is the closest other thing I've used to it, but its reliance on a weird amalgam of the Safari and Chromium engines makes it behave really oddly with plugins like 1Password.

It's a restaurant that's been here with the same menu since the 1970s, and their website does absolutely nothing besides pass out information (phone number, menu, directions), so they probably put it up in 2002 and haven't changed it since. It was just a startling reminder of how ubiquitous HTTPS has gotten.

My problem is with the selected solution: wildcard certificates are a huge compromise waiting to happen. They give an attacker the ability to impersonate _anything_ in my infrastructure for as long as the cert is valid (and even a week is _long_ time for that). Worse, if I'm then distributing the wildcard to everything on my internal network that needs to do anything over HTTPS, that's a lot of potential attack points. (If it's just one TLS-terminating bastion host that's very tightly secured, then...maybe. _Maybe_. But it almost never stays that way.)

To me, it's a much better security tradeoff to accept the hostname problem (or run my own CA internally for stuff that doesn't need a public cert) and avoid wildcards entirely.