The fact that I didn't challenge the premise doesn't mean I accept it. Whatever reason they had for these policies, they didn't anticipate that it would empower bullying, which would cause them PR problems when that became evident.

What's troubling is the fact that no one at Facebook contemplated the possibility that this policy would be used as a form of bullying. Their aribtrarily-enforced rules about nudity are routinely used the same way by homophobes, who go around reporting innocuous photos (and even illustrations) of partial male nudity or even just gay couples kissing or showing affection, causing headaches, suspensions, and even bans of gay people from the site. And they do so with complete impunity because they can do so anonymously, and there is no penalty for false reports. The users who are reported are given no right to challenge their accusers (or even know who they are), and effectively no right to appeal. Facebook's own policies and procedures facilitate and empower this kind of harassment and abuse. And they're just now noticing?

I'm pretty sure I've heard this story before.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

A couple times.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Do they get tickets because they drive these vehicles, or do they drive these vehicles because they're the sort who get tickets?

Half correct. Adobe's Creative Cloud software is subscription software, but it is not web-based. The "cloud" bit in the name is just buzzword bingo; the apps are installed and run locally as Windows/OS X executable binaries, just as they always have, with check-ins to confirm that you've paid your protection money this month.

Of course the subscription aspect is reason enough for many people to walk way from Adobe (as I have). I know many illustrators have turned to the Manga Studio for comics production, or the GIMP if they can accept its limitations (e.g. lacking CMYK support). Some people can likewise get by with Free software such as Inkscape or Scribus to replace Illustrator and InDesign, respectively. Serif (which currently has graphics apps for Windows) is undertaking development of a full-featured commercial Creative Suite replacement for OS X, and their Illustrator-substitute Affinity Designer (first piece of the puzzle) is nearly ready for release.

Worked at a major software house serving ðe biggest telecom operators all over the world. Ðe company started doing top notch Unix software, even creating its own SQL-like DBMS when Oracle was not good enough. Everyone from ðat era got promoted out of technical oversight over what was produced later, and ðe people who produced software later also got promoted out of technical oversight, so we were left with Microsofties who feared ðe Posix code, did not understand it, and were capable only of implementing overdue business requirements, not of any technical improvement or even technology updates.

Will be this the real Hurd?

So I guess your eyes glossed over before you got the part where I talked about how someone is still maintaining current releases of Firefox to run on the original iMac (from the 20th century)?

Why would there be any question that Chromium could still be compiled for 32-bit CPUs? It it's open-source, it can be. The only question is whether anyone cares enough to do it.

The Firefox devs walked away from PPC processors some time ago, but there's enough interest in that platform that an independent fork of its code has been maintained.

Do they wipe the screens of their ipads with kleenexes and q-tips, which they keep with the band-aids and aspirin next to a refrigerator full of cokes, in the room where they make xeroxes, next to the escalator?

One of the biggest limitations of the Shooter genre is right there in the name.

No, mathematics and logic are about provability. Real-world phenomena can't be proven; they can only be shown to have worked a certain way every time we've observed them so far. (I've dropped this rock 100,000 times, and every time it has fallen ... but I can't prove that it will next time.) If you want absolute proof you need to stick to theoretical phenomena. Or chuck it all and just believe something with absolute faith because it's written in an old book, like the other people who are afraid of their "truths" being subject to challenge.

The notion that climate science or economics can't repeat experiments is not entirely fair. While it's true that we can't conduct isolated double-blind experiments under identical conditions, we can conduct tests under analogous conditions to determine whether a given model is accurate or not, which is the real goal of such science. Given enough instances in which the accumulation of carbon compounds in the atmosphere leads to an overall increase in temperatures, or in which an increase in government spending or low-end wages stimulates economic activity in a market economy, we can make the inference of a correlation, and start looking for a mechanism of a causal connection.