CA is a joint and several liability state. Joint and several liability is the legal doctrine that each defendant in a personal injury claim may be held responsible for ALL the victim's economic damages. Importantly this can occur if you are fractionally at fault.

You've parked 10 feet off the side of the freeway, 16 feet away from any lane. Someone is going 80 miles an hour, passing cars, then (likely) falls asleep and veers sharply off the road, then along the side of the road and hits your parked truck.

Even though you are fractionally at fault you are on the hook for everything.

From actually seeing cases first hand

1) If you have money

2) you have a connection to an accident however small, particularly a fatal one, and very particularly with any kind of sympathetic angle (wife and children bereaved and at risk of being homeless etc

then you will be named in the lawsuit. And at least in CA - even if the husband was 90% at fault (to a normal person the one who did things wrong). YOU could pay out everything

I'm a bit tired of folks saying older devs are not resistant to change. Reality - with experience some stuff just seems faddy at times over the course of longer career arcs. So yes, older devs can be bit resistant to jumping onto the latest bandwagon.

We do have Biden putting tariffs on Canadian lumber to help keep prices high, but that's the only thing I'm aware of.

So many of their older ones are slow / janky etc. Carplay is a godsend on their other vehicles.

I'm assuming buttery smooth ipad like experience with great touch screen - can anyone confirm this? Burned too many times to trust the marketing vids.

The get up and go speed of the super old windows forms approach was fantastic.

Now I'm supposed to use - XAML? UWP? WPF? Do these have great windows form designer still?

I'm talking speed between download and go with an GUI, a button, a text box (maybe data bound) etc.

This will age me, but for all the decades of "improvements" this tooling has, every time I've tried to do the little widget apps thing I used to be able to do trivially I end up wondering in the woods.

"No way", "weird persistent idea".

This despite many reasonable people suggesting it.

Deploying IPv6 at scale is deploying a totally different protocal. What is irritating is that it's not just a larger set of bits, everything changed making adoption and tooling MUCH much harder.

"All the tools would need to be thrown out"

Totally and absolutely false. Because an extended Ipv4 would have the same underlying concepts you could modify the tools and continue to use them.

From address assignment (3 ways now) to the dynamic address privacy extensons (don't actually play well with IPSEC configs) to doing renumberings on prefix changes (100% nightmare) to all the training / learning new things (costs money in bigger orgs) they seem to have purposely made this change extremely hard.

Good news, I'm on board more or less with the migration at this point, and if I am a good marker of average reasonable interested in new things but not wasting tons of time then this is a good sign.

But boy they could have made this whole thing easier

If a business allows a nonprofit to use excess capacity, the capacity is still a business expense.

Google and AWS have huge amounts of unused computer capacity at low traffic periods. They can still expense those items even if they allow charitable use when not needed for business use.

Worst case if no unused capacity a business can call the expense a marketing expense and can ask the nonprofit to acknowledge their support of the activity. This is not uncommon.

The strategy itself was maybe something that could work or was at least an interesting idea - but the way they've actually deployed funding has been wild.

I wonder how much more self dealing will show up in all of this.

One benefit thought would be they could more easily block access to sites they don't want folks visiting by just denying a CA cert (which would then generate warnings / blocking in many browsers).

There has been a recent effort to add all these new operators that don't actually let you do anything you couldn't but now you can confuse everyone by doing it in other ways.

Why are people surprised that if something is free (pumping CO2 into air) demand for it is high?

You are telling me that doing a charge of let's say $10 - $100/ton of CO2 wouldn't have a DRAMATIC impact on emissions? Is $10 - $100/ton too little for a supposed climate emergency?

There is so much funding and lawmaking and finger pointing and shaming - but still - dumping CO2 into the atmosphere if free and dumping remains high and people pretend to be surprised.

On energy: CA curtails (turns off) solar (and wind) power because there is not enough demand. In 2019 CA had 921,000 MWhs of curtailment.

Let's start by charging something for CO2 emissions.

"Can" amazon, if they wanted, abuse this? It seems likely all the technical items are in place that they could. I don't see why they would, you are voluntarily putting everything they want into the device for them.

I wish the folks saying things were not acceptable would work on options that had the benefits they wanted.

Steve jobs didn't say - locked down phones with no access to the web in unacceptable, he built a better phone (and was rewarded very well).

He didn't say the way digital music is sold is stupid - he built a better music buying experience that let you authorize multiple devices to play your music etc.