funkymike

Having people like that also enables management to then set expectations based on the work of the outliers. If you aren't being abused then you aren't being a team player. The same way that "unlimited vacation" can easily turn into a competition of who takes the least vacation in order to look the most dedicated.

I'm sure I still have far to go, but currently when I see someone quote a time frame for a change I am more concerned when it is short vs. seems too long. Especially when the dev is questioned and the estimate doesn't include time for documentation, deployment, etc.

That's how I have seen it used in practice.

> The question is: can you make money as the developer of OSS?

Contributors to OSS are giving away their time and energy. That seems to be at the core of open source. I'm not going to demand you pay for what I produce - I'm going to give it to you for free with minimal restrictions in the belief that I will also benefit from others doing the same.

It seems to me that asking how to make money by giving away one's work doesn't really make sense. If you value it highly enough to think you should be paid, then why give the work away for free in the first place. No one picks up trash from the side of the road motivated by cleaning up their community then asks how they can get paid for it after the fact. Either you are motivated to give away your time and energy; or you really want a paid job, but one where you feel like you are giving back to society more meaningfully than just helping a company make more money.

In order to implement ETS they already have to compromise the endpoint to make the TLS 1.3 implementation use static keys, right?

> ETS just means they don't have to spend money on replacing their man-in-the-middle monitoring gear with client-local solutions on every workstation and server.

Doesn't it still require altering the TLS implementation to use the static DH keys instead of following the TLS 1.3 standard of using random keys?

This bugs me as well. American Express kept sending me information about someone else's credit card. It took arguing with their customer service for about 20 minutes to get them to remove my email address from the account.

The movement keys also help: () for moving by sentence and {} for moving by paragraph.

That's good language to look for. I didn't check closely enough and my mortgage documents stated that the loan issuer (my bank) would service the loan, but without any guarantee of how long. They sold the loan shortly after issuing the mortgage.

Every time I look a restaurant's web page and see delays downloading javascript crap when all I want to do is see a menu I think a person could make a good living just building basic HTML & CSS websites for small businesses. The site would likely be more responsive than some dynamically loaded javascript bloat just to show a few pictures and bit of text. It would also be maintainable by anyone, forever. No framework updates or APIs to learn.

It would be so simple you could even teach the business owner how to do basic updates, like changing the listed prices on the menu or changing the description of a dish. Sure, you don't get to charge them for these changes, but they'll be delighted they don't have to worry about paying a consultant's minimum fee just to update their menu.

If you allow the full signup with the email confirmation after, then you are potentially sending the confirmation email to the wrong person. I have gotten sign up confirmations from other people using my email address. I have sometimes confirmed the registration, used the password reset to take over the account (since they use an email for the reset), then cancelled the account.

If you aren't validating the email by sending an email that has to be replied to as part of the sign-up process (not after), then you are simply assuming that the email address was entered correctly without an opportunity for the person attempting the account sign up to correct it.

If you tar up backups, it is useful to change the permissions on the archive to read-only. It will prevent accidents like this.

I have noticed that the CD database in my car gets updated once in a while. A CD that it previously did not have track data for started being recognized at one point. It clearly doesn't fetch the data on demand based on observation, but it does get occasional updates.

FreeBSD has fetch.

https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?fetch(1)

If curl wasn't available the car companies would just implement something similar, poorly. They wouldn't open all their code just to use wget.

That's a grey area. It may still be considered to be a work made for hire and so the employer would own the copyright.

https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf

There's a good quote that I look at once in a while to remind myself to not be too smart.

> Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it. — Brian Kernighan and P. J. Plauger in The Elements of Programming Style.

I use an Elecom HT1DR and like it quite a bit. It is their "huge" trackball and I have found it to be pretty comfortable in daily use. The only issue I have is that some of the extra buttons don't work on Linux with the current driver.

So it becomes this?

* Get feedback often from the business owners

* Get feedback often from the developers

* Get feedback often from the users

I will disagree with this. Clicking on the bar has been part of the interface for some subreddits for a while now (though not many). I find it quite nice because if you are reading a deep thread and want to collapse to the next N levels up, then you don't have to carefully scroll up while watching the vertical bar to find the top comment in order to minimize that thread. This makes it very easy to skip to the next top-level comment when a topic has lots of comments.

Many small claims courts do not allow the company to send whoever they want. Some outright disallow sending lawyers.

This is one reason why I feel so satisfied when I can work on internal tools. If I build something for other people in the office I can get direct feedback and see how I have helped them.

I see ads in Windows 10 Enterprise. Microsoft has conceded to turning Windows into the OS equivalent to browser add-on malware.

It's not just about keeping potentially embarrassing things off social media. Everyone has biases. If you post something political, religious, etc. that really isn't controversial, that may still lead a potential employee who sees it to pass you over, intentionally or not.

> Why do you think arguing on social media is the only or even best way to engage politically with the world?

If Facebook is one of the primary ways you interact with a set of people, then it is natural you would exchange political ideas with them on Facebook. Having to take any political (or other potentially controversial) discussion to a separate communication medium makes Facebook rather bland. It's requires a form of self censorship.

This is the approach I try to take. It requires discipline but it has helped on several occasions.

The biggest benefit is that it makes code reviews easier for others because the reviewer can step through each commit. This makes the refactoring changes much more obvious.

Splitting the commits also makes it much easier to roll back a functional change that goes wrong or isn't needed while still keeping the refactoring improvements.

To me refactoring doesn't need a whole book or set of terminology. So long as a person understands and values the principles the individual refactorings will come naturally with experience. In my view it comes down to three main points.

1. Refactoring does not change functionality. The observable behavior should be the same before and after.

2. Refactoring should be done one step at a time. Each step should be as small as possible and obviously correct.

3. When changing code, at any given time you should be working on a functional change or refactoring - never both at once. Ideally these should be split into separate commits as well.

I think beyond the principles something like extracting a chunk of code into a separate function is not a task that needs a proper name. It's just something that comes naturally once you get into a mindset of always making things better, or as we say where I work: "suck less." It's getting into this mindset that takes the most work. If every time I deploy code it sucks less, or even just on average, that's good enough.

Refactoring is compound interest for maintainability. Once people buy into this everything starts getting better.

I also believe that you should never ask permission to refactor - just do it. A gardener who's task is to mow the lawn shouldn't ask permission before pulling a weed just because it's outside the narrow scope of the task at hand. Likewise a programmer should not ask permission before refactoring code (excluding large, time consuming refactors).

Which is necessary of course because you can be sure they'll screw it up.

My employer recently switched from PeopleSoft to Oracle for HR stuff. So now instead of the system itself being slow to respond, it is plenty responsive when I put in for time off. However, if I fill out the form too quickly it rejects the input as invalid. They can't even get form input validation to work correctly.

> That is not how some are reading it. It's not how I've understood Article 28(2) either, though getting new consent each time is nuts (e.g. I change from Mailgun to Postmark and have to ask all SaaS customers for consent).

This makes sense from the user's perspective. Maybe they trust Mailgun but do not trust Postmark. If they have explicitly agreed to you sharing their personal data with one company you shouldn't be able to start sending that customer's personal data to another company without their consent.

If you sign up for my service and I ask for consent to send specific data to SecuriCo for "user analytics and tracking" I shouldn't be able to change that to sending the data to the NSA without telling you. The whole point is that the user should be in control of what businesses are doing with their personal information.