kire456

I am guessing, for the same reason I can have a picknick in the local park with a few friends and discuss intimate matters. This takes place in public because that is convenient, but I still don't appreciate random passers-by interjecting their opinion. It's fine to listen in though, if you're sitting close by. Most people intuitively understand this.

Online, this intuition sometimes disappears, and people feel that the fact that something is readable to them, implies it is meant for them to interact with.

It wasn't like that when I visited a few years ago. We just booked a hotel, got on a plane and went there. I can't find this requirement on their COVID page either. Do you have a link?

Testing :)

You are advocating willful destruction of property. Property that is neither yours nor FTDI's. This is illegal, and broadly considered bad taste.

A counterfeiter commiting crimes against FTDI does not excuse FTDI committing crimes against a third party (i.e. the consumer). The world being safer without the counterfeit products also does not excuse the FTDI destroying things that aren't theirs. The justice system being ineffective at addressing counterfeiters is also no excuse for FTDI to take matters into their own hands. Vigilante justice is usually illegal.

Programmers make mistakes. A bug in your counterfeit detection code may end up destroying legit products. In addition, you can not be sure destroying a product will be safe - if the chip is in a medical device, you might be killing someone. The entire idea of destroying a product without explicitly being told to do so is fraught with peril.

You deal in false binaries. The third, imo correct, option is for FTDI to design software that works correctly with their own product, and spend no effort on the counterfeits - neither to get them to work correctly, nor to brick them on purpose.

A fourth option, if you want to spend some effort on something other than destruction of property, is to take option three, and also alert the user that they are using a counterfeit chip with unpredictable behaviour, and in your airplane example, advise the user they should probably not take off. If you want to be pro-consumer, this is a better way to go about it than smashing their stuff.

From the consumer's perspective, they had a working device, and a firmware update bricked it on purpose. It is possibly out of warranty, in which case they end up footing the bill (or experiencing frustration) for replacement and downtime. It takes Olympic levels of mental gymnastics to view that as 'pro-consumer', imo.

I am quite turned off by the following passage near the top of this page:

> bits of configs can't be reused. For example, while YAML, in theory, supports reusing/including bits of the config (they call it anchors), some software like Github Actions doesn't support it.

I use YAML configuration for Home Assistant all the time, and the includes work just fine. This article is off to a really weak start by saying "config files can not have X, because well they can just fine but arbitrary software Y doesn't support it". Especially damning because the proposed solution is to embed a whole other programming language within your program! If you can change the code of the consuming program, then just add support for imports, instead of adding a Python dependency.

The #[non_exhaustive] feature makes me unreasonably happy. It is a problem I hadn't even realized might occur, and the solution is very elegant, forcing depending code to be sufficiently general.

From a non-US perspective, I find it highly surprising that having children and wanting to care for them is framed as a deviant "personal choice" rather than something most humans do that is very normal and expected.

Do you honestly think making people choose between raising children and having gainful employment is normal and acceptable?

To answer your question, yes, being a parent is a normal part of life and society should be accomodating to the needs of parents, to the extent that is possible. (In fact, I struggle to see why working somewhere else than your designated office for a few hours a week would be a 'privilege' if the particulars of the job allow for it. I get the impression that bosses that disallow this are on a power trip and do not have the best interests of their workers, and thus their company, in mind.)

Your entire first paragraph as written conveys that the situation can not be changed, and the victim must change themself. This, in my opinion, is fatalist.

Please clarify what you mean if you find you have been misunderstood instead of getting angry and assuming malice.

I know several people in my tiny part of academia alone, whose eminence is well established, and who would not much change this by telling colleagues a certain individual is impossible to work with. I agree that it would take a vindictive mind to do so, but I am asking you to explain the facts any other way:

> Firstly, my eminent and influential PhD supervisor had let it be widely known that they thought I was an unpleasant person, impossible to work with, fundamentally stupid, and that I definitely shouldn’t be doing a doctorate.

I know no decent people who would say this about someone in a professional setting, let alone write it down and send it to many people. Also, no honest assessment of someone's academic skills can include the words "fundamentally stupid" if they are able to get into a PhD program, right?

> Yeah stuff like that happen, have and will, (...) good luck fighting that

Fatalism like the kind you suggest adds nothing to the discussion, and indeed to the academic community. It allows bad actors to keep acting badly. An article like this might motivate someone in power to examine whether this kind of conduct occurs in their institution. I don't know about you, but I see a positive expected value.

And I am not sure what you mean by the other side of the story. She has positive feedback from another supervisor, if the article is to be believed, so isn't the probable explanation a difference of personalities? And is there really any non-pride-or-ego-related reason to try and prevent someone not just from working with you, but in the wider community of which you are part? I can not interpret that behaviour in any way other than malice.

Let me pose this unfair question back at you. Are you willing to pay the price for providing an alternate means of sky observation at a scale suitable for astronomy, and for cleaning up the debris that might result from expiration of, or collisions between, tens of thousands of commercial satellites?

You are implying that launching many commercial (American) satellites is the best, or even a good, solution to the problem of many people not having what you consider adequate internet. Moreover, apparently this problem is so urgent and the solution so perfect that you feel the need to chastise these scientists for even expressing concern. I don't think you are approaching this discussion in a fair manner.

I can't speak for where you live, but being a student is a full-time job here.

And your last statement makes no sense. If you don't expect students to work after work, then don't follow it up with the remark that you'd see them jobless.

It is a nitpick for sure, but I am still amazed that a machine like this, obviously designed to be the best and look (and cost) the part, comes with a measly 1 year warranty out of the box. It takes away from the feeling that Apple has confidence in the product, imo.

For reference, European regulations will force them to upgrade that for free to at least 2 years, which is deemed a 'normal life time'.