pricechild

I get your decision making but the annoying thing is that using PayPal will most likely reduce your legal protections? Fingers crossed PayPal don't screw you over...

I don't think so. If you go into the UI, bottom left is a button to "Create New Login".

You get 3 fields: url, username & password.

I think that's a fair choice though.

Aha thank you, yes I hadn't thought about that form. Pretty sure I'd still include 'the', not sure. Interesting!

TF?

I'm not sure about your first example... I thought to myself "As an Englishman, what would I think about in the future?" and can't figure out a way to omit 'the'.

Could you use it in a sentence?

Bit off a kick in the teeth for NextCloud and makes returning to LibreOffice Online's CODE a likely path?

For now the features aren't actually removed (as shown in the thread) but disabled via a bool and can be reenabled quickly.

Try https://www.wireguard.com/quickstart/

For real world use, I'm a fan of https://wiki.debian.org/Wireguard

It's not just lies of omission. Take this:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/49-inches-Fire-TV-Edition-Smart-4K-...

> Plus, your TV keeps getting smarter with new Alexa skills and over-the-air software updates, so you always have the latest.

Now maybe they will provide software updates for a reasonable length of time similar to the hardware's expected life... but what manufacturer does that?

My current TV is >10 years old and I fully expect the "Smart" bits of this JVC TV to be deprecated in a fraction of that?

I run https://github.com/joohoi/acme-dns to solve the wildcard domain problem.

You can run it yourself locally, or trust (why?) the upstream's service.

I don't think you'd have much luck getting anything back from that "guarantee"... so is it a guarantee?

> 1) AT&T started blocking any number permanently across its network last January if it contains a hyperlink or email address, even if the customer interacts with the number. I had to create separate messages just for the 12.5% AT&T users.

I don't follow - they blocked any number which replied with a hyperlink or email?

Can users of AT&T not send them to each other?

Well technically...

you left out an important word after "offer":

> a written offer, valid for at least three ...

So it's not just requiring an offer be made, it's requiring a offer being made which is valid (with certain conditions)

If you make an offer you have no intention of honouring, surely that's not a valid offer?

My mistake, you are right in that the same language appears in v2.

My point is that the op commented:

> No part of the GPL, as far as I'm aware, requires distribution to anyone who isn't a customer.

...and I am agreeing to this position, against fuzzyh. Specifically "anyone" != "any third party" != "any third party... unless you've abided by a) or b), which don't require distribution to 'anyone' either."

That language seems to exist only in GPL v1.

It is also part of a list of 'or' options. You can abide by one of the other options and not need to adhere to this one.

Would `git log --oneline` not help?

Yep, I agree and that all makes sense.

Don't you find those projects within the company wanting multi-repos also?

> whether you're willing to dump money into updating everyting at once

I think the majority of projects in this world only update everything at once. They haven't investing in testing, sensible api's and testing to allow updating small pieces of their solution.

From my experience, I also think the majority of people who think they have a library and need multi repos to deal with that, don't have a library.

To further clarify, one user of your library means you could stop pretending you have a library and avoid the pain.

I don't mean to insist these problems do not exist, I simply don't think many people have them.

I regularly join projects where someone has decided to place the project's code in half a dozen different repositories.

Even though it's one project.

Even though they refuse to allow a release of a single component - it must all be released together without forwards/backwards compatibility.

I think most of of the time, the mono/multi debate is spoiled by people who feel they can have their cake and eat it too.

A shared key would allow impersonation/spoofing within the group.

ESR is making an attempt: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=8387

Or misjudge the probability of realising those consequences.

Not in Europe at least. Here's the UK's version: https://www.caa.co.uk/Commercial-industry/Pilot-licences/App... (there's a broken link which should point to https://www.caa.co.uk/Aeromedical-Examiners/Medical-standard... )

Sorry for your time, yes, you're right.

Huh... how long have I been using git...?!

Not sure why I was convinced otherwise, must be log's behaviour as you say. Had to test to believe it!

I'm missing something obvious but all of the history you show is in the reverse order to default behaviour?

Am I missing a config setting you explain somewhere?

What about Amazon?

> and (2) the pilots should be asked the straightforward question "are you in a normal flying pattern"

How do you do this when the pilots can't see outside?

> 5 — Implement Ansible, Puppet, Chef, Kubernetes, OpenShift, Terraform…

Irrespective of personal feelings on these individual projects, they're all aimed at automating something?

I don't get the point of this item?

What's wrong with them?

Aha I did not know that, thanks!

> In case someone commits SSH keys or secrets accidentally, just overwriting them and leaving them in the database is not good enough.

git-filter-branch is likely not the solution.

Revoke the keys/secrets. Then maybe rewrite history too, but afterwards.