Some idle speculation has finally been confirmed.

Not really. There was no particular reason to think this was impossible. We just didn't have any evidence it was possible.

Not to any useful theories. Theories like the Electric Universe have one more thing added to the list of things they can't explain, but that's no surprise. :)

That's a fair point, and if he really wanted to sue Mozilla, I'd expect that would be his most plausible angle to try to exploit. However, A) I don't think he wants to sue Mozilla, which makes the whole question somewhat moot, and B) he's still primarily a techy, not a professional CEO, which might well have made a more tech-oriented position attractive to him if the issue had actually come up before he resigned.

If you support trying to hurt (a set of) people, you shouldn't be surprised if those people (and their friends) start to dislike you and act accordingly.

What alternative do you offer? Forcing people to buy bread from the bigotted baker at gunpoint? Or forcing people to keep using Mozilla even though it's represented by a man who tried to take away their rights?

It would be nice if the world could be broken down into nice, neat piles of black and white, good and evil, but the real world is inevitably more complicated than that, and pretending otherwise is not useful or productive.

I notice you carefully avoided answering my original question, though. Is that because you didn't understand it, or because you couldn't?

If it was a serious offer, and the company could show that was the position he was best suited for, then no. Otherwise, it would clearly be a ruse to try to force him out, and the law actually takes such things into account. (Which makes your suggestion a straw man.)

A serious offer, for a job that would suit his skills would easily defeat any claims of unlawful termination. A insult obviously intended to pressure him into quitting might not. If you can't figure out the difference between the two, then I recommend you stay away from any job that involves interactions with the law, or the public.

The key word there is "lead". Show me where it said he should leave the company, rather than merely take a different role within the company, and I might concede you have a point. But if mere employment is equivalent to leading, then my employers are going to be in for some big surprises tomorrow! :)

How did he attempt to limit the rights of others?

Duh, by attempting to take away the rights of people. (Same-sex marriage was legal in California at the time.) I don't know how much more obvious it could be. The fact that he has the right to say it doesn't mean he wasn't attempting to limit the rights of others.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from all consequences. If your local baker were campaigning to repeal the 19th amendment, would you argue that women (or people who like women) who refuse to buy his products are infringing his rights somehow? If so, you have one of the stupidest definitions of "I'll defend to the death your right to say it" I've ever heard.

Did you even read the summery: "'It's clear that Brendan cannot lead Mozilla in this setting,' Baker was quoted as saying."

Did you even read it? It says "lead", not "work for". To win a suit, he'd have to prove that no other openings would have been available to him in the company. And this is a man who was valued primarily for his technical skills (as the developer of Javascript), and who was promoted from within, so I think that would be quite a stretch.

Or even just the headline of TFA (if the A itself is too much to handle):

"Japan accepts court ban on Antarctic whaling"

(Emphasis mine.)

This was a tricky one to answer. "I'm interested, but wary of hype" and "Not terribly interested in gaming headgear" are both answers that apply to me. I'm not particularly interested in fancy, expensive gaming equipment in general. But I remain interested in the general notion of VR. I just don't want to invest in it purely for gaming! Games are fun, and all, but simply not that important to me.

I have a quite high tolerance for hot peppers, but for me, the important factor is: do they taste good? I find some peppers have a better flavor than others, and it doesn't seem to correlate with the heat level.

And where did I say anything like "X sux..."? I said Wayland is going to have the benefit of the work that was done on X to create drivers, and the benefit of people on its team who generally understand those drivers. And you attacked like some sort of rabid mongoose.

I like X. I use its remote features regularly. And I'm quite satisfied with its performance. I'm going to be reluctant to switch to Wayland until it supports (directly or through XWayland) all the features I need. Nevertheless, I think I'm probably going to end up running Wayland/XWayland in the not-too-distant future. It's already installed on my system, since most of its libraries were dragged in by some package dependencies I haven't bothered to track down. And I like variety and options, so I'll probably start playing with it soon. I have tried the sample terminal client, and that seems to be working just fine.

It's still referred to as an orbit, even if it doesn't resemble a classical orbit.

Except that, unlike what's usually referred to as a wave at that level, it has nothing to do with frequency. It's more of a probability wave. But it's still subject to the exclusion principle, which really complicates matters. Two electrons can't occupy the same location, but location itself is a tricky concept at that scale.

Anyway, all of that just goes to make my point. The very small (and the very large) are not like what we experience at the human scale. Reality is not fractal in that sense.

Dig deeper, and you soon hit the Planck length, so, no. Really small things don't resemble larger things at all. That's why QM is so counter-intuitive. Heck, you don't even have to dig that deep to realize that an atom does not resemble the solar system, even though both have small things orbiting a large central mass.

For that matter, go the other way, and you hit the light-speed barrier, which has a huge effect on the way really big things work. The very large and the very small are both immensely different from each other and from things on what we consider a normal, human scale. Your notion is poetic, but contradicts most of the physics discovered since the early 20th c.

The Wayland developers are, for the most part, the X developers, so they not only have access to all that existing X driver code that took so long to write, they're the folks who best understand that code, and know how to adapt it to a new environment. They're standing on the shoulders of giants (and in some cases, are the giants).

The biggest changes we should expect to see are in the API. Under the hood, I expect to see a whole lot of code that's identical to the current Xserver, or nearly so. As I understand it, the biggest issue right now is making sure that Wayland has the security X always lacked. Security, rather than hardware details, is probably the biggest obstacle to getting the acceleration in.

Turbo Pascal came out in 1983, two years before the first release of GNU Emacs. However, Maestro I (1975) seems to be generally credited as being the first IDE (although some argue for Dartmouth BASIC from 1964).

So, uh, yeah. :)