I find the title misleading. It suggests that the current sudo is not memory-safe, while in reality it is just not written in a memory-safe language. That attribute means very different things when talking about a language and a program. It honestly seems a bit arrogant from the Rust-fan-block to use that description, as if programs could not be memory safe unless they are written in a language that guarantees memory safety.

Hard to imagine what turn-based strategy would look like today without this long running series.

What all these haters miss to point out is *why* these companies need to change their license: to prevent AWS and other cloud providers to offer a directly competing service on the source that the company, and not AWS, maintains. Sweet deal for Amazon, ruinous for the company that *actually* pays employees to maintain the open-source project. So the solution is to minimally reduce the rights granted under the license to prevent exactly that. In fact *most* uses people care about are still permitted under the Server Side Public License. So claiming that this would now be closed source is garbage. It's similar to the old fight over "GPL is the only real open-source license" because it is militantly open-source: forcing all derivatives to adopt the same license. So please stop claiming that you are the judge of what is open-source and what isn't. The discussion needs to be more nuanced. Does Redis' license change *really* stop you from building on it the way you have been, or are you just arguing an ideological case?

There are lot of startups offering UV-C robots, not just UVD Robots, which seems to be getting all the attention. There is list of over 40 such robots from all over the world here.

Great suggestion! Sorry for the delay. This is implemented now. We've actually already added it a few days ago and I had meant to respond earlier but forgot.

"Detection of Terahertz Magnetic Resonance Could Revolutionize Electronics" was the headline, but no mention of *how* terahertz detection would revolutionize electronics. So I went and got the scoop of why this actually matters (which is what 95% of readers will care about more than about how they did it):

It may just as well be that the number of competing job boards doubles ever year and the postings distribute equally. Reminds me of TV channels: they kept increasing until eventually no one cared anymore and cut cable all together and became more selective again about what they subscribe to (netflix, hulu, hbo, etc.). With this constant increase in job boards, they may all become collective irrelevant eventually and maybe people are indeed no longer posting jobs on them. So maybe both of these effects are at play? a job-boards bubble?

Opera has been spearheading a lot of innovations in browsers. Likewise, one can notice that Apple's OSX Lion may have taken some inspiration from Gnome-Shell. Most notably the idea of a flexible number of workspaces. Of course, no one knows whether this is really where they got inspired, but hey, at least some of us saw it first in Gnome and then in OSX. So I think being the spearhead of innovation in desktop environments and leading the way in innovation, would be a great new goal (or mission) for GNOME. It is well set up for that too, because it doesn't have nearly as much at risk as Apple or Windows have. This is a typical benefit of being small: more agility. Also, I'd like to point out that GNOME has, in my view, achieved more than what they said out to do. A *working* free desktop environment? Gee, this is more than just working! I personally prefer it over the OSX Lion desktop environment I use at work -- and Windows currently isn't really a player. GNOME has worked hard to make it to the top: now go and lead the way, at least for a while!