Personally? I didn't bother. I had a private recommendation and I went directly to them. Sessions were about 35 quid a pop (perhaps 60 dollars?) which is bugger-all when compared to the benefits: I got my life back. I was out of the office, sick, effectively, and paid personally for these. Turned things around very rapidly and well worth the money.

I appreciate I'm fortunate enough to have had the money to do this, but tech pays well on the whole and compared to the cost of _not_ doing so I'd not muck around in the future.

There are several conditions which give rise to similar sets of symptoms, and without having an expert take a look, your guess is just that.

RSI is an over-applied term.

This is all excellent advice. Your GP and your local ergonomic advisor might be well-meaning, but they tend to target the site of the pain - which often arises as referred pain due to nerve pressure elsewhere. (There's a lot of unnecessary tendonitis surgery being performed as people mis-diagnose carpal tunnel syndrome, etc.)

Go see a physiotherapist; ideally one who you've had recommendations of from a fellow sufferer. You sit for eight hours straight in a terrible position: your back and neck cramping up, your traps tightening defensively, and so on, and the place you're gonna feel this is not the place where the damage is occurring. A few sessions with a decent physio (and an easy exercise regime which you FOLLOW - use your workrave breaks to do these stretches) can turn this around. It's your livelihood you're talking about.

Anecdotally: about three years ago I had terrible RSI symptoms - so much so that I actually thought my career was over. I did a whole bunch of intensive physiotherapy (after my GP helpfully and very rapidly started talking about surgery - well-meaning, but not informed) and it pretty much saved my quality of life, my ability to earn, and my mental health.

Don't look to "cope" with this. It's typically fixable. Talk to an expert. There's a simple cost-benefit trade-off.

"Reflections on trusting trust", Ken Thompson, 1984.

The caution now runs thus:

“You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”

which is to say, the prosecution is permitted to sneeer and imply that you've found an alibi after the fact; the judge won't censure them for it, and will not instruct jurors to ignore those comments.

He will get asked again when he comes out. This will rapidly turn into a fiasco.

There's a strand of comments against that article offering the viewpoint that the author's criticism should be followed by patches, or is otherwise somehow invalidated.

Look at Diaspora's current "contributor agreement." It shows the same approach to legalese that's been demonstrated in the codebase: ie, it's of shoddy pre-alpha quality.

No bloody way. Fix the contributor agreement, you might see patches.

would be a case in point.

You're gonna claim that there's no such thing as centrifugal force, next.

Agh.

We've had a number of problems caused by contractors who behave like naughty children in this fashion. So much so that our briefing to people let into the machine room (our estates people will just let contractors in and leave them unsupervised!) includes "if you accidentally hit the big red button (that has a cover over it these days because it is right where you'd expect a lightswitch to be, and we've been stung by that before) or pour your marguerita into the UPS stack, yank out a power cable because you've climbed up a rack ratehr than getting the ladder*, or ANYTHING, do not try to turn stuff back on. Let us know what happened. We are aware that accidents happen and there will be no recriminations for honesty."

* or the guy with a hacksaw in his hand who says: "whilst I was being careful and not sawing through your fibre runs, I noticed that someone had sawn through your fibre run. Honest." It really is a bloody circus.

It is cool, but there's wiggle-room in the debate :-)

The device extracts energy from the wind, and using only that, the vehicle *as a whole* progresses downwind faster than the windspeed.

The cunning part is the prop; because it's rotating, the blades themselves aren't moving directly downwind (well, considered instantaneously, they're moving across it), and that's the "trick" of it. It's a very clever idea indeed.

That is not the case. The wording of the caution is that if you do not mention anything when questioned that you later use in your defence, that may prejudice your defence.

That is to say: a prosecuting barrister is, these days, within their rights to sneer and imply to the jury that what you've said in that regard was clearly made up after the fact.

That depends on the student. Chalk and talk works well for particular learning styles. There's also plenty of evidence that transcription assists recall for lots of people. You mention "listening, thinking, and asking questions" - what you really want is for students to be in a high state of alertness rather than switched off. Different people achieve that different ways, so don't pooh-pooh the idea out-of-hand.