I think you mean that it must be the world capital of bad murderers. I mean, the drivers aren't even trying.

I don't have a problem with linking to a video as long as you have a transcript, but the fact that "thousands" of people watched them without complaining doesn't prove anything about whether they liked them. In fact, every single comment I've seen about the sort of "webcam interview" videos which are nothing but somebody talking is negative, which leads me to believe that very few people actually like them.

This is as opposed to videos that actually show something graphically that you're not going to get from a simple transcript -- people seem to be mostly OK with those.

It will apparently also be filled with fact-free posts by conspiracy nuts who think that everyone who disagrees with them must have been paid off.

There's a difference between not looking past the next quarterly report, and not worrying about a completely unrealistic scenario -- in this case, that my software will still be running 50,000 years from now when there actually is a disagreement in date between UTC and another standard.

Introducing pointless complexity to try to "catch" poor software or hardware is a bad idea. Engineering is a hard enough job without purposefully making it harder.

There have been 25 leap seconds since 1972. At that rate, it will take around 6000 years for UTC to be even an hour different from TAI. Leap seconds don't have any appreciable impact on the sun always being up during the day.

I don't think anyone really cares about whether we use UTC or some other system, though. The problem is that software/hardware vendors have all been using the wrong time standard -- nobody but astronomers actually has a reason to want UTC. We just need to get developers to use a different standard that doesn't have the stupid leap second problem.

I liked how they characterized it as "a short-run test of third-party offers on five of the mirrored projects." Do they really think that anyone is dumb enough to believe that this was intended to just be temporary trial?

But the new design saves so much screen real estate!

Oh, wait. Because of that stupid "share" button sitting all by itself that nobody is going to use, you haven't saved any space at all.

Isn't one of the tenets of good website design that it's better make the links obvious so that people can find them? Old users are annoyed by the change because it breaks their expectations. New users are much less likely to find the comment section of Slashdot because there's no clearly-marked link to get to them -- you have to figure out to click on some cryptic icon that just looks like a decoration. You're not saving any screen space, and the "share" button sitting all alone like that just looks silly.

I don't mind an interface change if there's a good reason for doing so, but this one is all downside.

Didn't you hear? Slashdot is trying this cutting-edge "Agile Development" thing. The idea is that instead of testing your changes, you just make them directly on your production site and see what happens. It's the wave of the future!

We have a name for a video that you passively watch of fictitious or staged events. It's called a "movie," and I'm pretty sure that they've been used to train people for various scenarios roughly since the technology has existed.

I do the same thing.

If you want a real easy way to waste their time without wasting your own, just talk to them long enough to get them to ask you for your credit card number, and then tell them "oh, I better get my wallet" and put down the phone. It often takes them 5-10 minutes for them to realize that I'm not coming back.

If the phone system was sanely designed, the calls would have a "real" number that could not be changed as well as a "callback" number that could be. A big company could use the same callback number for all calls, but not spoof the "real" number that the call came from.

There are tons of things that could be done to reduce the number of fraudulent calls, but the reality is that the phone companies make loads of money off of having lax rules that allow companies to do whatever they want.

Maybe because some people prefer C# to Java? They aren't exactly the same, after all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_C_Sharp_and_Java.

Is the article inaccurate? Pushing some sort of evil agenda?

If it is, then tell us how. And if not, then why should we care about your personal vendetta against the organization?

When humans can navigate the I70 through the Rockies during a blizzard in heavy ski season traffic, let me know.