I'm a developer and I hate systemd.

Yes, nondevelopers do use Linux on the desktop. I personally know 6 of them.

The systemd problem will force me to stop using Debian, a prospect that I dread for a number of reasons (but mostly because changing all my servers and workstations will be a lot of work). Could it be that this is a sign I might not have to leave? Oh, please let it be so!

Yes, this is a great point. I do care, but in the opposite way that Intel wants me to. Many of the apps I use are native, and all of the apps I write for Android are native. So, I doubt I will ever use an x86 based device. Unless there is some super-special advantage to what Intel is offering, the pain and impact of the change would be too much.

I couldn't care less what processor is in my phone or tablet. I only care if my phone or tablet can do what I want it to do. I suspect that I'm in the majority here. So, Intel, please explain to me why it matters whether my devices contain ARM or x86 architecture?

Fortunately, they are very easy to permanently disable. At least for now.

Now I have to use a voice scrambler for all my phone calls.

The app store lock-in is the primary reason why I won't ever own an iDevice.

Are you talking about products looking at the functionality that people are using in the field to determine what features to drop or keep? If so, then these metrics are a bit of a plague today, since the assumption seems to be that you can determine how important a feature is by how often it's used. This results in very important, rarely used features getting dropped. (The obvious most recent example is the Windows start menu).

Judging by the output of the UX crowd over the past few years, they actually seem to believe that worse is better. It's kindof funny seeing him arguing against the proposition.

And yet, most of the code written in those languages results in a better track record than CSS. In fact, most professionally produced code that has problems fails in edge cases. Most the the CSS I encounter has problems in the main use cases.

True, about 80% of the time when I have a problem with CSS-based pages, I can still sorta read the pages. Often I have to do annoying things like resize my browser, reduce my font sizes, or other types of workarounds before the page becomes readable, though, so that's sorta weak sauce. Nonetheless, there's still an annoying high rate of breakage -- I'd say about half of the websites I go to present some amount of functionality loss or unreadable text due to CSS.

But even worse than that, the limitations of CSS make web designers choose designs that are just bad (for instance, my own pet peeve of pages that have a fixed width or limited ability to handle arbitrary window sizes. Yes, you can do these properly with CSS, but it's much more difficult to do, so most web designers don't.

I'm not saying it's impossible to make a great, robust web page using CSS. I've done it. I am saying, however, that for nontrivial web pages it's much more difficult than making the equivalent page without it and it's much easier to mess it all up. In my view, that makes it a poor tool.

Sure, this is possible -- but if we're going to get that hysterical about the potential of ebola, then there are hundreds of other things we should be getting hysterical about first.

For the record, although there is some uncertainty about it, it appears that ebola may be able to exist for only a few hours outside the body (some studies say as long as a couple of days, though) on hard surfaces. It doesn't last more than a handful of minutes on soft surfaces such as fabrics.

Indeed it is. However, that's still a very poor method of transmission. Just getting infected fluids on your skin isn't enough for transmission to take place. The fluid has to enter a cut, abrasion, or mucous membrane.

I don't know. Given that most of the CSS-heavy sites I see routinely break or suck as a direct result of using CSS, its clear that most web developers don't know how to properly use it. And if, after 20 years, most developers don't know how to use a tool then I tend to think the fault is not the developers, the tool.

True, but this problem can be worked around by using dynamically generated web pages -- which brings an additional benefit of still separating layout from content, if you feel that's important.

A problem that CSS has not actually resolved, judging by the number of websites that become unusable when I make my browser window my preferred size.