That's certainly something worth worrying about (it would really piss me off, that's for sure), but how does this make it significantly more likely?

Because it is creating what amounts to a massive DNA database. Once that is done, it is essentially inevitable that the data will be sued by insurance companies, governments, advertising agencies, hackers, and other ne'er-do-wells. This is a disaster in the making.

That's OK. I already avoid Chrome to the greatest extent that I can.

I'm very much in favor of end-to-end encryption of all things. That said, I think this is a seriously bad move on the part of Mozilla.

There's a pretty huge difference between helping people to be more secure and forcing people to be more secure. Mozilla is forcing people. This is Mozilla attacking people so they'll do what Mozilla has deemed to be The Right Thing. That it is indeed The Right Thing in no way excuses using the tactic of force.

And then there will be people like me: who understand why, and still don't care. If Firefox stops working with web sites I need to go to, I'll just stop using Firefox. I'm already a long way there: there is an increasing number of websites that Firefox doesn't work well with, and so I have to use a different browser for them.

Yes, the browser wars are on their way back.

Let's encrypt isn't hard, assuming that you have enough control over the server that you can install Linux packages and that your server runs Linux. If either of these aren't true, Let's Encrypt is worthless.

Thanks, Mozilla, for yet another reason to stop using Firefox.

I use mine as well, frequently. My laptops don't just sit fixed and stable in one place. But I've never had these connectors go bad on me.

wait a minute, were you asking a serious question or just trolling?

Not trolling, it was a serious question. Perhaps this is well-known to you, but not to me.

Yes, this is one of THE MOST annoying thing about Agile proponents: it seems that every time they are told that Agile sucks, their reply is that it wasn't being done correctly. Which may be true! However, if that's the case, it means that Agile is so difficult to do correctly that it is a questionable thing to do.

I understand your point. On the other hand, when I am continually told that doing "x" will give result "y", but every time I've done "x" (or watched "x" being done) I've never seen "y" come from it, then I have to question the original "fact".

This is my prediction as well. I've seen nothing in Microsoft's announcements that tells me otherwise.

Which begs the question: why bother? If Microsoft's effort here is successful, then I might be forced to do this -- but until then, it's just additional work for little gain.

If I have to make any changes to my code at all, or have to use Microsoft tools, then I'm not interested. Windows Phones aren't a big enough market or an interesting enough platform for me to bother.

Interestingly, in each of the places I've worked where Agile was used, there was more uncertainty about what you are really supposed to do than in places without it. In two of those places, we went from the standard development process to Agile, and we went from everyone knowing what had to be done and what they need to be doing individually to nobody really being sure of anything.

I've heard this claim many times, and maybe it's even true. I've just never seen it happen that way. In every project I've seen that follows a variant of Agile, the result has been that it takes longer to produce lower quality code compared to if you're using more established methodologies.

But a team with good interpersonal dynamics (also known as a functional team) doesn't need anything that a formalized Agile process brings. They're already doing those few things in Agile that are actually a good idea.