Yea, this inverter isn't very bright and violates the first rule of splitting with an axe (after wearing steal toed boots), don't let go of the axe handle during your swing.

No, the first rule of using an axe is to either use an axe with a long handle, or a hatchet, but never anything in between.

I'm not much worried about my toes wielding a long-handled axe, but I am worried about more distal objects (and people) in the plane of the swinging motion. Medium-handled axes are for crazy people who never much liked walking around in the first place, or who get an unbearable itch to perform a District 9 pedicure.

Agreed, but what should that mechanism be? My business runs on open-source software. Pretty much everything is behind our reverse proxy, Pound. One of the numerous libraries which Pound relies on is OpenSSL.

To whom do I give money? Debian? The applications I use like Apache and Pound? Do I enumerate all the libraries that all the applications use and give each of those hundreds of projects a few pennies?

They still have it.

https://www.mysql.com/why-mysq...

I'm not following that. He describes in great detail how there's no way his private key was compromised. Why does he need to re-key?

I don't want to go into details, but basically it was we actually used component brand X to build an application with when the customer wanted brand Y. I never learned why they were picky about such, for as far as I could tell it didn't matter much. Either way, there was not enough time to recode it and rather than tell the customer, my boss & owner wanted me to lie with them.

In that case, show me the "proper" complex model and explain, with evidence, why it is correct, and perhaps I'll start to agree with you. I'm open to good old-fashioned logic, science, and reason.

You are putting words into my mouth. Basically I'm saying that IF you want to change behavior on a large scale, you need to find a way to change the reward system(s) on a large scale.

Nagging people to "be good" and accept the down-sides of honesty for altruistic reasons alone will not work well in the longer run. I'm not saying whether asking them to do such is good or bad, I am only saying it won't work on a large scale. I'm trying to explain it in terms of cause and effect rather than give it a good/bad value judgement.

X will change Z but Y won't change Z. Whether doing Y is "good" even though it won't change Z is another issue that I didn't address either way.

Those options don't scale. Honest people will receive less resources and have less influence and perhaps have less children, leaving the world full of slimebags and enablers of slimebags.

It's probably why so many slimebags exist today. If you want to solve the issue on a large scale, you need to find a way to change the system(s) to not reward slimebags, not rely on futile individual volunteerism.

Smells like a sneaky way to bring back Clippy: "It looks like the page is missing. Would you like me to run a Bing search for you?"

Let's see if he retains that skill in the Hague.

It seems to mostly apply to men also. Congressmen as a whole look like a Crypt Keeper gathering.

These extremists must be stopped at all costs!!!

Spot the contradiction in the above sentence.

Why do investors think they are entitled to growth?

It's the sociopathic religion of Ayn Rand, or the Christian-influenced variation: "God wants me to be rich because I'm special and thus entitled to step on the lazy slothful poor".

I've been in a situation where I pretty much had to lie or lose my job. This was just after the dot-com crash in California and new gigs were hard to find and I had a family to support. If I were single, I'd tell them to shove it and find a gig in the north east, which still had "legacy" openings at the time. But that wasn't a real option.

I had knots in my stomach over that conundrum; it's not pleasant. I could relate a little bit with the dude in Les Miserables who had to choose between theft or starvation.

Even now I have to often live with foolish choices by PHB's simply because they are the boss. It may not be "unethical", but often it's bone-headed unprofessionalism. I try to CYA as much as possible, but sometimes you just have to shut up and play the game if you want the rewards of the game. The work world is messy Dilbertism in most orgs.

It looks so gay that if it was painted pink it'd only be 3.7% gayer.