chrishas35

TUL (and probably plenty others) has free visitor passes, no precheck required

If you go to the user's profile and then to the post, it seems to be okay. So perhaps also looking at Referrer.

Posted today...dated 2 days ago.

When those 1s and 0s are deleted and that delete is replicated (or other catastrophic change, such as ransomware) you presumably don't have the ability to restore if all you're doing is replication. A strategy that layers replication + backup/versioning is the goal.

> Apple’s implementation uses SMS as a backup.

I hope they'll go away from this, or at least give the option. I won't use their password/key storage until they do. 2FA is only as good as the weakest link, and SMS is the weakest possibility.

Where would you like to see it be more relaxed? While the documentation has some pretty strong recommendations, other than the top 5 accounts, you can pretty much do as you wish.

Not when it's an event in the past. When the event in the past you know which TZ rules to apply for conversion. The issues arise for the future because you don't know what change may occur.

I think the issue is that so many of us were brought in on something pretty simple, "GMail for Domains", that has become so much more than we ever asked for. And in return we've gotten a lesser product (the Google accounts are handicapped in many ways) and a painful migration experience to leave (see inability to take Google Play purchases as one example). It's a terrible bait and switch now that they have years of history to amplify the pain of leaving.

You're right the fee is not unreasonable for the services offered, especially compared to the competition. But given it's not really what many were actually after (we just wanted a @example.com gmail account!) and are left with a handicapped account, why would we want to pay up?

> I wonder if they considered having a couple of big lights in center field for the ump to get this info visually.

I think having the automated call kept semi-private is part of the design. Umps aren’t big fans of getting shown up. Maybe in future iterations, but the only way this is getting adopted up front is if the ump still has some “control.”

But that's exactly what the article did without actually mentioning Challenger. A very strange article. "It trails only these four shuttle orbiters (we're not going to mention the fifth)"

Yes, that is the plan now. It was not the original because…we’ve never flown on another planet before. It was successful so they are changing the parameters after learning more. SCIENCE!

Helicopter requires rover to be near by as means of communications as helicopter itself can not directly communicate. Thus, it originally had a limited time as the rover needs to move on to other activities.

They have stated they have no intentions of using the rover to do so. I would think given this is now “extra credit” doing so becomes even less likely.

Author probably could have chosen a better example such that it doesn't look like the author chose letters sequently. In this case the letters are meaningful as they are the same as the first of the table name, a common convention, unfortunately that happens to be the first two letters of the alphabet...which yes, would be very annoying.

Split the difference and let’s move on.