I'd much rather hire and keep good T2 and T3 support personnel. When T2 support has to deal with an unending cavalcade of "Oh, it wasn't plugged in, thanks for the help!", they are going to leave right quick.

It sounds like what you need for your situation is metrics, not eliminating T1 support. The point of tiered support is that the higher-level support people are supposed to be using their time that isn't answering the phone fixing the underlying problems that the support system is perhaps only mitigating. They can't do that while they are answering the phone. Surprisingly, people are only capable of concentrating on one thing at a time.

And I frankly don't give a shit if you feel like you're dumb because a T1 support answered your problem. The entire world does not exist to cater to your feelings. Maybe stop acting like an idiot would make you stop feeling like one. Or maybe stop trying to feel superior to T1 support whose job it is to help people, even blowhards like you.

I am an IT professional, and even I make simple mistakes sometimes. There is a reason rubber-duck debugging is a thing. Tier 1 is a rubber duck. Deal with it, you self-important asshole.

Most people younger than me know exactly shit about how their black monoliths (with brightly colored protective cases) actually work.

http://modernperlbooks.com/boo...

It's funny that both sides are blaming the other for this. They're both fucking you.

bigint has been around for a while. Is that not what you want?

My team produces libraries that other teams use, and I keep having to tell my coworkers this: It is not our users' job to fix our documentation (though we can ask them to point out where our documentation is inadequate). Wikis are where documentation goes to die.

Good documentation starts with the author of the code.

Let's call it what it is: An aid when giving presentations, which are themselves also not documentation. There is no substitute for documentation.

Specifying what I want leaves it open for interpretation (by whom?). Or, worse, reveals what I am actually looking for (making a targeted coverup easy). Allowing police the ability to make judgement calls as to what to give when an FOIA request comes in, or outright deny a request that they can consider unreasonable, is no safety against police misconduct, which is the entire point this exists.

No. They are working to serve the public. They should be prepared to get a bulk request for all data they have everywhere. Putting limitations on it will first clog up the courts, since a judge will have to decide whether it meets the law's requirements, which then involves lawyers. Then it will be used to cover up real crimes under the auspices of "not an official incident".

We've got a core Mojolicious dev in the Chicago Perl Mongers, which makes it a lot easier for me trying to grok their docs. The IRC channel (irc.perl.org #mojo) helps a lot as a human-companion to the Guides.

Learn Perl, Mojolicious, ReactJS, Bootstrap.

Once you learn these, you'll never go back to the "old way" of doing things again.

The value of rights are not adjusted for inflation, sorry.

Police accountability? Are you joking? Then they might be afraid to shoot unarmed people to death, and they might be afraid that their fellow officers might also hold them accountable. And then they'd be scared of the people! And we can't have that, or else they might shoot unarmed people to death!

"Caused" is different from "Coerced". Entrapment is where a LEO says "do this illegal activity or we'll do X", X being some relatively terrible thing. A LEO, even undercover, cannot put a gun to your head, tell you to do something illegal, and then arrest you for doing the illegal thing.

But more subtly, a LEO can't, for example, repeatedly ask you for drugs, and then when you finally find some to sell, convict you of distribution because you had exactly and only those drugs. However, if you're a drug dealer, if you've got more evidence of illegal activity than just what existed to satisfy the LEO's request, then entrapment may not be a defense.

And so here, in the indictment (http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/williamsindictment.pdf), Williams is quoted as saying how many times he has exactly helped people lie to the federal government, which is a crime. The LEO did not make him do those things, and did not force or coerce him even to admit them.

Which is why entrapment is not a defense here.

IANAL. YMMV. BYOB.

Where's the entrapment? The agents did not force Williams to perform the service he was willingly performing for other people.