The âoevaluationâ was not based on the money they are/were making, instead it was largely dependent on the company growing for the foreseeable future. Not only did they lose customers last quarter, but they now see even more loses to come.

Fox is benefiting from the larger number of those subscribers who feel the need to collect more evidence for their defamation suits.

For a while, we had the inverse relationship - it was the browsers which all defined their own behaviours, and to interact with it, you had to know exactly which browser and version you were running inside in order to know how to make a call which got the result that you wanted.

Caring about people's anger does not imply allowing people to express their anger violently in any manner they may choose. It implies accepting that people will feel anger, and then understanding and addressing the reasons they feel that.

Long term, caring about people's feelings of anger should result in us minimizing a lot of the problems that cause people to feel anger.

No.

The former employer has no obligation to provide the information with a prospective employer, hence the absence of information would not amount to concealment. Although if you choose to provide information and someone then decides to take action based on the information the prospective employer could make the argument that they acted in dependence of that statement,

Nope.

As defined by Black’s legal dictionary, fraud:

“A knowing misrepresentation or knowing concealment of a material fact made to induce another to act to his or her detriment.“

There is no legal upside to say good things about past employees, and yes there are some downsides.

If you claim someone is outstanding at X and the next employer disagrees they may think you intentionally lied to them, this could be construed as fraud.

If you say good things about some but not others, you create differences that could be explored by those not having good things said about them as potential discrimination.

... the "I am sorry that that people are holding me accountable for being an asshole" apology

Bullshit

At best code strives to be mathematically precise, but it rarely is. Errors abound all over the place, often related to misunderstandings of the functions that are being utilized or of the actual nature of what is being computed.

In reality this is not that different than the errors that creep into contracts and regulations.

Just because you manage to get an output by pushing data into code does not mean that this output is valid or a true representation of the intent of the programer much less the parties that have "agreed" to the code/contract.

People are frustrated that contracts are hard to understand. Over centuries basic agreements that make up the legal framework for all the economic transaction we engage have become
Increasingly convoluted. In part this is to address the problems that have been experienced, some of it is people trying the tilt the playing field in their favor, and also there is an element of attorneys trying to make themselves important by gobing things up with cruft that is not meant to be understood.

So âoesome geniusâoe decided that we would just take this crap and toss it into a computer program that even less people can read, and thought this would fix everything.

We are truly doomed if this is what people think is going to âoesave usâ.

Let's see, granting access to your systems to run random code on behalf of undisclosed companies that are dependent upon the rise and fall of cryptocurrency markets.

Good luck with that.

...that a large popcorn and soda were expensive before

It is what the article is referring to

If you have been around for any length of time you would know that the reason bug sharing with open source groups became a thing is that without a concern about exposure software companies seldom patched things.

This created opportunities for people to develop reputations based on the quality of their finds and eventually created the proof needed to develope things such as well established open source intelligence and companies that specialized in coordinating bug bounty programs, and decentralized pen testing groups.

If you cut off the ability to share with anyone but the vendor who created the bug and the government all the rest of it fails.

It is one thing to choose to put your efforts into free or open source efforts, it is another thing for the government to mandate that you only share with them and not with others (such as open source intelligence groups).