mfoy_

That had more to do with "who owns what, and who gets what when they die" than anything else. (Citation needed...)

In a modern society with strong property rights and gender equality monogamy would be unnecessary from a purely "maintaining civilization as we know it" point of view.

...No comment on an emotional / psychological point of view.

If you consider system oppression to be a form of validation for bigots, then it follows that removing that validation would result in reduced bigotry.

It's almost as if the cloud is a fair weather friend. ;)

Affected services include but are not limited to:

* SharePoint

* Dynamics 365

* OneDrive

* Business Central

* PowerApps

* Flow

* ...and many others, I'm sure.

And Dynamics 365, and Flow, and the admin centers...

But they take a percentage of transaction, and the "freelancers" do pay a monthly fee, I believe... Admittedly I just googled "Freelancers.com business model" and found a Quora answer, so I don't know how accurate it is. But that makes it sound very not-free.

I know our consulting firm has a "director of market development" in part because there is no place we could just hang our sign and get business.

It's mostly networking and word of mouth.

It's not even free though.

That's the problem with a platform-as-a-middleman-service that uses a commission business model: they have to aggressively, and I mean aggressively, take measures to ensure neither the providers nor the recipients of the service cut them out of the loop.

It's as if legal parking costs $20, the parking ticket is $5. However you may not even get the parking ticket, so obviously you would never pay for parking.

In Ontario, at least, "engineer" is a protected designation.

http://www.peo.on.ca/

How exactly does a 22-year-old have a $3k+ rent?

It depends how much you value material possessions. Is "winning" the rat race important to you?

Money, after a certain threshold, has very little incremental value.

I've long thought that tech needs like.. a guild or trade union, or a professional association of some kind. The problem though, is that it's so easy to get into, so there's no easy way to "police" ourselves, because tech has been democratized so well-- Anyone can do a code boot-camp and be up and running within weeks. Not that that's a bad thing, it just makes it harder to hold developers to a code of ethics or anything like that...

Maybe we just, as a society, need to adopt morality and ethics more deeply into our cultural DNA.

I agree, but the optics are awful. It's not a technical problem, it's a psychological one.

I don't have any sources to back this up, but I'd wager that people, on average, would prefer to take a risk an order of magnitude greater if they believed they had some degree of control over the outcome.

I.e. let's say 10% of conventional cars experienced a fatal accident, and 1% of self-driving cars experienced a fatal accident. I think most people would choose to be in the 10% fatality group because they feel like they would be in control.

Anecdotally, I have a co-worker who hates flying because she feels like she isn't in control, even though aviation deaths are extremely rare.

Why? Why not serve the ISO over HTTPS?

I don't see why a https:// site would serve up a http:// download link to an .exe in the first place.

Mixed-content rules would block even loading http:// images on a https:// page, so wouldn't you think that blocking .exe downloads from http:// sources on an https:// location would also be blocked?

I don't love Google, but this doesn't seem like a bad idea.

My bank only allows for up to 6 alphanumeric (no special!) characters.

https://www.bmo.com/olbb/help-centre/en/my-profile/change-pa...

It's more about form than flavour. Two different raviolis can have totally different stuffings, but no reasonable person will confuse a lasagna for a ravioli... although I suppose you could put a ravioli layer inside a lasagna...

It really is, these people could also threaten to use their influence to smear places as well. So small business owners may feel the need to kowtow to the influencers' demands. Very much akin to: "Oh! You're the duke's nephew? Dinner is on the house, of course!"

Yeah it's a pretty self-absorbed thing to do (and say).

Like, there's no harm if the outcome is mutually beneficial... but you just have to know deep down that posting one picture of a beach out front of a resort for your 2,000 followers to see is not going to generate a worthwhile amount of interest in the resort in reality... But I think most "influencers" are completely deluded anyways, so maybe they really do believe that posting a couple vacation photos is of equivalent worth to the vacation itself...

It's like people who approach photographers and request that they work for free to "build their portfolio".

Cut out the first two paragraphs of your comment, they are irrelevant and misguided. Although there are issues with online mobs and the kangaroo court that social media has become, that has nothing to do with this. Also, complaining about SJWs has become a dog whistle for bigots-- it's not even a useful term, anyways.

Regarding the third, some of Linus's rants were out and out vitriol. Like Linus, I don't hesitate to call BS when I smell BS (as is, perhaps, obvious), but I usually manage to do it in a civil manner.

No matter how good or enthusiastic the teacher is, under-performing students simply require more time. Time is a precious commodity, and if the class size is large and professors have other (non-teaching) responsibilities then something has to give.

Unless you're advocating that "good professors will just put in the 90 hours a week to make it happen"?

But you can't force a piece of knobbly wood into a straight line. You work with what you've got. If the wood is twisted and knotty you have to play with that, you can't say "I make little identical figurines and I can do it with any wood" no matter how skilled you are.

That's the point, you work with what is in front of you. That doesn't mean you'll have an identical outcome.

The real problem is that society is more and more treating universities like companies that sell a product instead of educational institutions. The idea that "I paid for this, so I deserve it" is toxic.

That's not how it works, as history has shown us.

I mean, developers are building houses in flood plains as we speak and no one bats an eye.

Your initial point was that we should not assume "Evolution" means biological evolution. Let's remember that and proceed:

In a pedantic sense, saying that "it evolved" means nothing because everything "evolved" for some suitable non-Darwinian interpretation of what "evolved" means. For example, if you're willing to not assume "Evolution" implies "biological evolution" then why not argue that woman evolved from man's rib as per the Bible and that man "evolved" from dirt?

"Evolution" without explicit context, and perhaps additional qualification (e.g. "the evolution of our solar system") means that as much as it means nothing.

It's not even "one in ten thousand", I think more often it's just that the people who don't know assume that no one else knows either and don't bother properly asking around.

How would you legislate the desired result?