The two solve completely different problems?

Make is horrible anyway, the syntax is just bad. But ignoring that- make, bash, perl, or python build scripts solve the problem of building code. That's not what an IDE does (in fact it generally just calls a build script when it does do it). An IDE is a graphical editor with built in features useful for editing code and a tightly linked debugging environment. THe build stuff is a minor component of one. Even most people who do use home rolled scripts to build use an IDE to edit.

I don't know a single Android developer using it. I've heard of them, but everyone I know still uses Eclipse- in fact many rather program in a text editor than that- stability is more important than anything else.

The problem with making statements like this is that major tools like this tend to fragment the population into two groups who don't interact much. So each side sees itself as "everybody uses". You need data, which nobody has (number of downloads is an ok-ish metric, but isn't really that good as download != use). The best metric I have is how often do I see problems about a particular IDE on programming question sites, and going by that one Android Studio is either perfectly bug free and easier to understand than any IDE ever made, or it has near 0 uptake. I'll bet on #2.

There were legal mp3 sites like emusic from the late 90s. Not to mention it being legal to rip cds you own for your own personal use. And the thousands of bands which purposely posted songs in mp3 format for free as a form of advertising.

Its hard to compare car insurance directly since it depends so much on driving history, type of car, and theres a lack of quoted prices. However having lived in 3 states on 2 coasts in the last year, it didn't change much.

Different calculators give different results, but they converge tot he same numbers within a percent or two, with one bad outlier website. Here's an example of what I could find:

Seattle vs Quad cities

        Groceries14%more
        Housing48%more
        Utilities17%more
        Transportation8%more
        Health Care23%more

San Jose (southern silicon valley) vs Quad cities

        Groceries27%more
        Housing154%more
        Utilities48%more
        Transportation0%more
        Health Care21%more

75K in quad cities is 96K in Seattle or 116K in San Jose. Financially the cost of living argument just doesn't hold up, as you can beat that in Seattle and EASILY beat that in San Jose. The lack of employers pushes down salary more than the cheaper prices make up for. You also generally have to choose between fewer interesting jobs as well, although that doesn't matter to everyone.

Even cost of living adjusted you're being screwed. A senior in Seattle (more expensive, but not silicon valley prices) will make 120K plus stock. A senior in the valley can make 160+ not counting equity and bonuses. A senior coming off a big success like working at a sold startup can make twice what your combined salary is (that's not counting what he makes on the sale itself). And cost of living isn't as huge a deal as many people make it for two reasons:

1)The only thing that's hugely different is housing. Even if you pay 2-3x rent, you won't pay 2-3x for car insurance, the car itself, food, etc. That tends to be more 10-15% max (and usually much less, some things are even cheaper). You're most likely figuring the COLA wrong. The right way to do it is to break your costs into categories and figure out the adjustment for each category, not straight multiply by the rent adjustment.

2)If you save the same percentage in either place, you should still prefer the place that pays more because you can downsize someplace cheaper at retirement.

If you have personal reasons for wanting to live out there, that's totally different and understandable. But understand that you are getting fucked financially by it, it isn't just a cost of living difference.

I don't know what setup you used, but the only thing that regularly crashed mine, even back in the day, was eventual slowness and crashes due to memory. It was normal for it to run nonstop for several days. Really the whole Firefox split out was a big "but their code sucks because it isn't how I'd do it", resulting in a worse product. A case study in why you don't throw out working systems really.

That's never what Firefox was about. It was a big rewrite because a bunch of Mozilla devs decided they wanted everything written their way and if it wasn't they'd rather restart from scratch. Even initial versions were actually more heavyweight and leaked more memory than mozilla suite. It should never have existed in the first place, they should have just moved the browser in Suite to a standalone download for those who wanted just that functionality.

Amusingly enough the old Mozilla Suite is still chugging along as SeaMonkey. Its still more performant than firefox and doesn't suffer from the feature creep or the "what features of chrome UI do we want to rip off this build" issues that FF does. Its a better product by a longshot.

Then keep working. That's what retirement is- deciding not to work anymore and live off savings, because you prefer that lifestyle with less work and less money. Since you won't be bringing in a salary anymore, that means a lesser lifestyle money-wise. When that tradeoff is worth it is up to you.

Because I want to charge my e-reader once a month, not once a night.

Because I want to read my books and have my phone work at the end of the day.

Because I want to be able to read in sunlight.

Because my phone screen is too small and I don't want a tablet.

They could still have ended negotiations. That said- it would take an extremely good businessman to do it at that point, most would already be counting the money Apple would make them. But if a deal is wrong you need to walk away. They're hardly the first company to fail because they made a bad decision to take on a contract they weren't ready for.

Maybe you guys do, in which case it will probably work out fairly well. Most places use Agile for design and development- in fact Agilistas will claim that any time spent on design is wasted, and that one of the benefits of agile is not needing to do design, that a design will form as you go naturally. It tends to turn things into a major cluster fuck.

I've read many issues. 100% of it agrees with what I said above. They believe they have no duties or responsibilities to their fellow man or society, and they redefine the terms "freedom" and "rights" to be a tautology of what they believe in. From a logical standpoint they have no ground to stand on. From a moral viewpoint they are the most vile philosophy on the face of the earth, the entire point is to allow themselves to feel morally superior for throwing away all sense of empathy and care. And that's the kindest way I can think of to describe it.

Sorry, your definition of anarchy is wrong. Anarchy is lack of a government. There's nothing in it preventing others from limiting your freedoms in it. In fact that would be the 100% goal of most of the population in an anarchy- to amass power over others and use it.

Very short sighted answer. I'm not willing to sacrifice my values. Am I willing to work for/with others who have other values? Of course.

I'm pro-choice. Not all my coworkers are. We work together just fine.

I believe in welfare. My boss is a hardcore republican. We work together fine.

Why? Because those morals don't apply to the job. Now to get closer to the mark:

I believe in minimal accumulation of only annonymized data for use in improving my project. Some of my coworkers want far broader reaching data retrieval. We comprimised somewhere in the middle. We're not using this data for anything I consider immoral or selling it off, but we're keeping more than I consider absolutely necessary. I'm ok with this, so long as there's certain things we don't track.

I work for/with people with vastly different morals all the time.

Even ignoring that, its possible to be in a situation where you can't/it's difficult to leave a job, or for there to be something you're slightly uncomfortable with but doesn't breach your morals to the point where you have to leave in a huff. The world isn't black and white. And that's of course assuming you actually know everything the company is doing (you don't) and understand all the implications and future uses.

You misunderstand how libertarians use the word free. To them, freedom means being able to do whatever they want whenever they want in any way they want without any form of responsibility to anyone or anything. In other words they mean anarchy, and they're deluded enough to think they're all Ayn Randian supermen who will rise to the top in such an environment. Holding a rational debate or explaining anything to someone like that is a waste of time, it's like trying to convert the pope to Buddhism.