mook

I get the pop-up semi-frequently from Chrome. I don't think complaining to Google has ever helped with anything; but then it's not like complaining to Apple has a better track record.

Yes, I don't know why the OS isn't tracking the pop-up by bundle id or anything. It's not like I changed my mind the last dozen times…

Eh, happened to me. Decades ago, before all this wave of preformativeness. To be fair, I _was_ addressing a small group of girls my age; at the time the gender of the people involved was simply not relevant to the topic and I didn't consider it at all.

… I wish they picked a better word, because I actually misread that as Latrine… definitely not going to be referring to anybody with _that_ at least.

There's a bunch of changes recently / coming up in Canada, so that might be good enough. I've started occasionally reading the tzdb mailing list archives for fun because of that.

Unfortunately, a Pagan successor seems closer to what a modern game looks like… modern RPGs seem to typically have a large action component.

My understanding that go at least doesn't ship their own root store; they're shipping a patch to blacklist certain intermediate certificates instead, even if whatever OS-level root store would have accepted them.

Basically, the design didn't have a way to distrust anything other than removal from the root store. Which may still happen, but that will take longer.

If you mean Comodo and Setigo, they're the same company, pre- and post-rename.

Let's just say they've had issues with signing sub-CAs before where those sub-CAs went on to misuse them before… looks like it was around 2011?

At least it kind of makes for them specifically, since Netscape did SSL initially before OSes had that functionality. Their mailing list, as far as I know, is still the canonical place for public discussion about the infrastructure.

And jsx was kind of weird because e4x existed (and was never widespread, and implementations of it went away).

I suppose the important part was that jsx needed to be compiled, which means it couldn't introduce any new security issues…

My understanding is that the OFF position is for special cases, such as on ferries (the drive-on kind, obviously) where cars are densely packed and they can shine into the staff.

Odd; the first comment I see from them explicitly mentions that he can't actually stop it due to the license, and it's just a request; per GitHub, that text existed in the first revision of that comment.

> As the author of the package that is being re-packaged here. I'm against it being repacked into here. > While licensing wise I cannot stop you, I do hope you can honor my request.

Effort is sort of a see-saw; if the writer puts in less effort, the reader needs to put in more to decipher it. If the writer literally puts in so little effort that the result is completely wrong, the reader needs to do the work to check it and find the correction.

If you put in zero effort on some programming knowledge, they would be to put in the effort to confirm that you're correct.

In that case, wouldn't it be better for uv to reject unconstrained? Gentoo (or any packager, such as homebrew / nix) is too far downstream for that. Presumably allowing unconstrained seemed to make sense in some circumstances at some point?

Pretty sure compute, storage, and transit are all of value, pre and post AI. At least, pretty sure those things still cost GitHub money.

One of the grocery stores near me actually uses that in their POS system, so you can hear it as you check out.