What are "both sides", exactly, and what are their respective goals?

To an outside observer, it would seem that the Iranian regime's goal is to stay in power, and that they are in a better position to do that now than before the bombing.

They have even unlocked a previously unheard of bonus, to put tariff on transports through Hormuz, which they never had the power to do before.

As an outsider it is hard to understand why this is happening and how it will end, unless all these concessions served to the Iranian regime were deemed worth it as distraction from domestic issues.

It's worse, we simply abstract away everything else, including innumerable things that are quantifiable.

I hate these especially much: It's at the same both both overly dramatic, it's presented as some great reveal that will change everything, while at the same time being completely trivial and only detracts from the explanation. If you have no idea that memory addresses are translated you will understand absolutely nothing from the text or even what this is all about. If you want to explain what an MMU is, just do that instead and don't present it as some great revelation.

But some equally dramatic phrasings could just as well be something that leaves you astonished. You never know. You have to skim the text to find what is useful information and what is just filler. The signal-to-noise is low.

It's called slop for a reason.

We've seen that over and over again throughout history, and we will see it again it we continue too far on this road.

And packet switched network equipment were much, much, much more simple than their time divisioned counterparts. On the same budget you could run an order of magnitude fatter pipes using ethernet switches rather than ATM switches. That's also why they won.

Simpler and cheaper architecture end-to-end means the same budget can be spent more wisely. That's usually what wins in an open market.

Anything else would be a quick bail for me, and I expect over time anyone who hires in disrespectful ways will get the candidates they deserve.

What you should do is make software good enough so your users will use it, and publish the source code under a free license. The first Debian developer that uses and likes your software will package it, and the virtous cycle can start. It can be tempting to "own" the user experience (after all, everone wants to own their customer) but one has to let go of that thought. Updates can not be expected to get pushed out the same day when you don't own the customer, but that's overall a good thing.

Ask the distro people what you can do to make their work easier, listen to them, but do not try to do their work for them. Unless you live in that distro you are unlikely to understand how they expect your software to behave and the nuances of how it should be packaged.

One of the good ideas about Linux packaging is that it is not the same people that make the software that package it. Code can be reviewed. Bad ideas can be caught. This principle is sometimes violated, but that violations happen doesn't make them a good idea. We live in a world where no one should execute random software from the Internet without any form of reputation or review, and distribution packaging suggests one way we can accomplish that. A way that has survived three decades, after all, so maybe it's worth listening to.

Mozilla can, because they are so large they can have people spend their days working on it. No one else should.

I have no idea what you are referring to here but that is most certainly not the case in most democratic countries. Where common carrier or telecom immunity is a thing they do not want to know more than they are legally obliged to know.

The problem is not with the technology but those that control it. (Some would probably say, the fact that any one actor controls it in the first place.)

Our only means of communication in modern society are a few advertising platforms in hands of even fewer owners, and the engineers hired to run it are busy engagementmaxxing.

Unless your culture sphere consists solely of children's books and Disney movies, that is just a bizarre thing to say. Heroic deaths and tragedys has been a staple of storytelling since the dawn of time. Greeks even had a word for it. Any random book (for adults) during the past several centuries is likely to include the subject, with a hundful exceptions of course. But a classic way to build tension in storytellin is with a tragedy.

But Matrix closely follows proprietary products in its design, and the database is treated like some internal affair that you are not to meddle in. You'd have to reverse engineer the data format from source code, which is not practical for hobbyists.

This is supposed to help our economic growth during the coming decade.

You can also view them as data expansion tools. They expand an input to an arbitrary long text. That text contains roughly the same amount of information as was contained in the input to begin with.

This is not very useful unless your work is content production. More useful is when the output length is shorter than the input. Then it is a (lossy) data compression tool. These are, as we all know, very useful for images and sound but now we have them for text too.

> Can't a device on VLAN1 not peek at VLAN2 traffic if it sits on physical connection where packets from both VLANs happen to travel?

That would be an exceptionally weird configuration. If a device "sits on VLAN1" that typically means that it's on an "untagged" port where only VLAN1 traffic is allowed. Ports that carry multiple VLANs are "tagged" ports and you normally wouldn't say they "sit" on any specific VLAN, precisely because that port carries tagged traffic for multiple VLANs. It's at best an irregular use of the terminology but likely a misunderstanding somewhere.

Not legal advice.

(It would surprise me greatly if we as a society let these gadgets be sold openly from here on.)