Dick Cheney brought us the current mess.

I think you'd need to be more specific regarding which mess you're talking about. We have a lot of issues at the moment.

I'm sure his press secretary would argue that was more of an aspirational statement. And that it was necessitated by Republican inaction.

There couldn't be a wrose personality to be in power than Zuckerberg.

I dunno. Dick Cheney or Nancy Pelosi might be worse.

I... think you're focusing on a minor bigotry of the GP, which was not really related to his main point.

Your login is "LostMyBeaver". I'm sorry, but I just have to ask... did you have a sex change?

Maybe they should just offer a link to a free YYZ download with every Netflix membership. Problem solved.

For $8 a month they offer a pretty good selection.

I agree, assuming that selection includes movies I actually want to see. Now it mostly doesn't, so its value to me is approaching $0, sadly.

Yes. Unfortunately, as my trust in them goes up, their useful library continues to shrink.

Don't forget the "War on Terrorism".

Is FDD here to stay?

It seems like you're extrapolating from that experience, to thinking "FDD" is a current trend. AFAIK it's not. A small number of dysfunctional shops like that has virtually always existed. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you've only been doing software development for a few years, so you're working from a limited sample size.

I have been in a few jobs where the managers were verbally and/or emotionally abusive. In both cases I left ASAP.

This has always puzzled me why some developers list this as a negative. What is wrong with wearing a suit?

They're expensive. They generally need dry-cleaning. Spilling stuff on them is expensive. They're typically less comfortable than some alternatives. They tend to be hotter in the summer than what I'd normally wear.

Every professional workplace has an expectation of a formal atire.

Either you have an unusually narrow definition of "workplace", or your statement is just factually incorrect.

I think you may be missing my point. Let me illustrate with a scenario:

Doctor: I think you have long cancer.
You: That's an extraordinary claim, I want proof.
Doctor: Sorry, you're not my patient. I don't have time to talk.

Do you ignore what he said because he made an extraordinary claim and wouldn't meet some particular burden of proof?

So how does that work then? If you tell me something that's true, but you can't be bothered to try persuading me of it, shall I flatly refuse to believe it? Regardless of the idea's underlying merit? I don't see how that policy is profitable.

I believe it was the great Joel Hodgson and Josh Weinstein, who counselled us in such matters:

If you're wondering how he eats and breathes
And other science facts,
Just repeat to yourself "It's just a show,
I should really just relax
For Mystery Science Theater 3000."

Those who understand how to correctly apply the scientfic method know that the burden of proof is on the person making the assertion (the alternative hypothesis).

I never really bought into this idea of "burden of proof". It strikes me as a rhetorical / debating tactic, rather than a part of good-faith truth-seeking.

If an assertion is true, then it's true regardless of who in a debate advances it.