Everything you think as being "intuitive" is simply you being used to other software behaving in a similar way, or you expecting some icon to match the behavior / usage of a real-world item it kind of looks like. It's training, whether you realize it or not.

Fuck no.

Documentation is worthwhile.

UX is willy-nilly bullshit 99% of the time that you'll have to revisit over, and over, and over with each new fad. Any changes to "UX" shit will also force you to unnecessarily rewrite half of your documentation.

Air doesn't have to "move faster". Viewing the profile of a wing and using it as a fixed reference point, the air on top doesn't have to move faster in the horizontal plane at all, it just has to be deflected. Air moving at a velocity (or a relatively faster one) doesn't create a force. Air moving faster than other air doesn't create lift.
What creates lift is the deflection of air. This is achieved by the angle of attack of the wings. When air has to change direction there's acceleration, and thus force.

If lift was caused by air moving faster over one face of the wing than the other, it would be impossible for planes to fly upside down. The shape of the wings (top face vs bottom face) has a very minor role in creating lift. Wings are shaped the way they are for stability and efficiency (the reduced drag and slight spoiler effect).

Get some large pieces of cardboard. Your latest Amazon shipment or pizza order will do. Cut out rectangle wings and strap them onto your arms so they are level when you stretch out your arms to your sides. Spin in a circle. No lift. Stop.
Tilt the wings up (leading edge is higher). Spin in a circle. Holy shit your arms want to ascend. Stop.
Tilt the wings down (leading edge is lower). Spin in a circle. Holy shit your arms want to descend. Stop.

Lift is due to the deflection of air under the wing. The difference in relative linear velocity between the airstream above the wing and the airstream below the wing is a result of this deflection. This difference is not the cause of lift nor is it dependent on the shape of the wing looking like a traditional wing. Perfectly flat wings will do just fine.

I'm saying you do exhibit a basic grasp of relevant concepts, that on Slashdot people who are correct usually get shat upon, and that the "experts" in TFA often don't have a basic grasp of the relevant concepts, as your post illustrates.

Irrelevant - if T-Mobile advertises their shit as "unlimited" then they need to be held to that.
Advertising claims, contracts, etc. should be enforced hierarchically, with the largest, loudest, most-repeated, etc. claims ruling over the smaller, hidden, whispered, or quickly-spoken ones.

You're lucky Slashdot doesn't have a "-1: Basic Grasp of Relevant Concepts", because I'm sure you'd be modbombed by it.

Maybe I'm just old, but I'm really sick of seeing articles, interviews, etc. where the "expert", often times an actual degree-wielding scientist, gets fundamental concepts completely wrong. Every time I hear someone explain lift with "air on the top of the wing has to move faster, so... lift!" I want to defecate into their open mouths.

No. And I don't own a fedora.
Keep trying though.

Yup. As soon as I saw "Jezebel" I knew what was up, and I knew that they brought it upon themselves. I also knew that they love it, because they get to play the victim card while spewing their hateful misandrist shit.

100% fucking wrong.
They're trying to log into these email addresses.
They addresses CANNOT be sent to - they are INVALID addresses for their domains.
It's right there in the fucking summary.

Not quite. You're confusing Mb with Mib and GB with GiB.

There are 1000 MB in a GB, not 1024. This was changed a while ago. I don't know why people haven't adopted the new rules. Science uses 1000 for everything, except for some things where it makes sense like temperature, and some things where other bases are much more convenient, like time.

But for computers we need to use 1000. Even though with computers things are binary and we need to deal with factors of 2 all the time, people might get confused between 1000 and 1024 when they buy a hard drive. So for science purposes we need to use 1000. I know this is confusing, but once everyone starts using 1000 for Kb and 1024 for Kib, and we update all the old references that people already wrote, it'll be much easier for everyone.

The next step is to change a byte to be 10 bits. Don't worry - the IEC and SI are already working on the best way to force this bullshit down your throat, too.

Are you joking? 99% of shit you run will spend more time reading/writing from disk than waiting for free RAM.
And I have 2 high end SSDs in RAID 0.

It would never work for programmers or secretaries. Both groups rely heavily on punctuation, symbols, and formatting.

They more accurately measure the age at which you took the IQ test. The younger you are, the higher your score. Your age is nearly as important as your actual answers.

The fact that you've made a dozen (and counting) posts trying to re-re-re explain and rectify your mistakes should clue you in to the fact that you got called out for spewing bullshit and no one is buying the repeated attempts to retcon your hilarious error.

You're absolutely fucking retarded and you need to stop. The vast majority of "authentication programs" are nothing more than:
if (HASH(inputPW & getSalt(inputUser)) == getHASH(inputUser))
    successfulLogin(inputUser);
else
    unsuccessfulLogin(inputUser);

How the fuck do you think people attack passwords once they have the hash? Rate limiting doesn't stop an offline attacking from succeeding on the first try online after it cracks the password offline. Rate limiting doesn't stop an online attack because an online attack is going to take forever due to the fucking latency. And with no latency, an online brute force or dictionary attack simply turns into a DoS attack if you have rate limiting enabled.