Classic obligatory column on Kopi Luwak. Definitely a memorable description of his experience with it.

Maybe in European languages the connotation is more from 'ware' , usable in the singular (?) sense?

Bara för att jag ska göra mitt bästa för att genericize skiten ur din dyrbara lilla "varumärke", din jävel.

Source: Google Translate

That's not cheating, right?

'Saturday night special' is what came to mind for me too. Is it only law enforcement that concerns themselves with gun crime, while the ATF is tasked with issues regarding the guns themselves?

They also made a public statement about an employee termination in a way I thought was unusually descriptive.

I did appreciate Amanda Blum's take on this -- it was clear, almost wholly fact-oriented, and very informative.

And finally we have the argument for Google Glass.

Maybe a public apology -- "I was wrong", "I made a mistake", "I'm sorry", "I made incorrect assumptions about my company's support", "I will not make this mistake again, and this is why", maybe even "I wronged these two people".

Something like that owning up to her behavior, followed by a credible explanation that she changed as a result of the experience, and that her behavior was not to be interpreted as reflective of the company's values. Then followed by how she plans to make amends.

You're right about her mistake being public, so publicly trying to fix it seems an obvious option.

What I wanted to add was that it seems odd that a company would produce such a detailed public statement on specific internal decisions on an employee's behavior. Even more so since it seems like it was predicated on what sounded like an explicable, rectifiable employee mistake.

I wasn't sure I wanted to submit this and accidentally hit Submit instead of Continue Editing ... ugh.

But was it necessary to throw her under the bus:

And then gun the engine?

Maybe I don't understand how company policies are written, but this sounds like public advertisement of a private company decision. Even accepting that these would be the facts, I assumed that in many cases, people are given the option to leave with something noncommittal like, 'mutual parting of the ways'.

But broadcasting to the public that:

• Sendgrid is positively stating a lack of support for her actions,
• her own actions make her ineffective at her chosen job,
• she acts in a way whose consequences can put a business in danger

is unusually specific and, particularly with the last item, nothing short of damning. This comes from the CEO, too.

Funny you should say that, as one of the keynotes mentioned that Pycon 2013 was 20% women (attendees?).

Can someone clarify whether this applies to any debt, or just ones involving a initial loan of money?

And most of us are trying to figure out who should be shouting, 'If you don't stop this, I'm going to turn this car around RIGHT NOW!', and why they haven't yet.

Those would be cool, or if the new Pope looked like this one.

When there's a clearly described and readily available more-optimal alternative, that alone could be a sufficient nerd reason to at least learn the underlying principles behind [x], for any [x].