Odd. I installed a new Thunderbird on a Windows 10 install just a couple months ago, and it picked up the self-signed cert on my mail server just fine. Unless by "recent builds" you mean something newer than October.

As a software developer here that likes to fiddle with all languages, the second paragraph from Wikipedia seems to answer your question nicely: "It is a statically typed language with syntax loosely derived from that of C, adding garbage collection, type safety, some structural typing capabilities,[2] additional built-in types such as variable-length arrays and key-value maps, and a large standard library."

So from the first few words someone might know C and desire garbage collection to be handled for them? Golang might be a better selection for them than Java.

Personally for me, the built-in primitives for concurrency make it a great language for tinkering in realms of software design that were once onerous to me. But that's only one of a few of the language's goals.

Maybe a better set of questions would be for an elevator pitch on why someone should use golang? Or perhaps if they have dropped some goals of golang for others as development went forward?

In conversation, I refer to it as golang. You are right on your point about potential for confusion but I don't think your example is apt anymore. Googling for programming go appears to yield only results about golang. Also, it is not without tangential benefits like being able to call Go developers "gophers."

I think when I first started programming Groovy long ago I stumbled upon a website promising that software development was groovy ... that's no longer the case when I google for groovy programming resources.

In short the success of your language is a big enough concern than the name of your language is negligible (with the exception of negative words). The search results will follow.

I am neither a leftist nor a corporate shill. I believe in beating the shit out of private companies that deserve to have the "shit beat out" of them. You need only look at the lengthy history of consumer protection in the United States to find instances where this was and is necessary. Take, for example, Debt Collection Practices. Please, please, please "beat the shit out" of unscrupulous collection agencies. Please "beat the shit" out of the companies that call my grandmother to deliver unsolicited advertisements about a "warranty extension" on her car. There are plenty of private companies that should have this done to them. The issue I take with China's implementation is 1) that it will never target a state owned business and 2) the guidelines are by no means clearly laid out and can be ambiguously interpreted. Who will interpret them? When will they interpret them? Why just in time and by the same state body that made them. Please tell me, how can I prove that my product's advertising does not "Cause detriment to national dignity"?

It's not that binary. The United States has its own truth in advertising laws that, in my personal opinion, are beneficial at both the federal and state level. Slashdot readers are free to go the Libertarian route and claim the free market would alleviate these issues on its own or perhaps point out how downright pedantic it can be at times. But the truth of the matter is that, as a consumer, we only have so many hours in a day to decide which of the thousands of products we consume in a year we should spend our money on. So it does come down to federal guidelines for what is "Grade A" or "Organic" or "Green" when there is a label espousing these properties and there are consumers paying a premium for this notion. Without those guidelines those words will mean absolutely nothing and there will be no way to tell where your product was made, how much cadmium it has in it or whether it is the end result of spewing carbon into the atmosphere. Without similar laws, you wouldn't be able to trust the nutritional information at the grocery store. Is it free speech to claim that my potato chips cure cancer and lead to weight loss no matter how many of them you eat? People will know that I'm lying? Cigarettes used to sooth sore throats. Trans fats used to taste awesome.

Speech used by an individual to express ideas is free speech. Advertisements -- especially advertisements representing a very large organization -- are not. Corporations should not have the same rights individuals have and I feel that free speech is one of those clear cut distinctions. There is a long history of consumer protection everywhere in the world -- learn about your own country's struggles with it. It's not a simple issue and advertisement should not be regarded as free speech.

Here is the full text of the newly amended law. Here is the WIPO listing the deltas with the older 1994 version of the law (click expand notes). It appears that this is the first change in this law since 1994. Also the WIPO provides a PDF of their English version which seems to be slightly different. I also found a definition of the extent of what is regulated advertising by the PRC. Here's the WIPO's full list of defined restrictions:

Merely sounds like another tool for the Party to deal with companies that are not state owned. Most companies will be found guilty of some section of this but they won't be prosecuted until they run afoul of the Party. In China (and increasingly in the US) everyone is guilty of something but only those that the state wants to be prosecuted will be prosecuted.

So looking at the story, we have a new law enacted a month ago and whose head is on the chopping block today? Xiaomi? Well from wikipedia:

Aaaaaand there's your problem. Wake me up when a state owned company is prosecuted under these new laws. Xiaomi's true crime was probably doing better than Huawei.

"Make sure a white male won" You appear to be spewing back whatever blog you last read that claimed the Puppies were racist and sexist.

Right there in the Wired article is a woman who was on the Sad Puppies recommended list. She excused herself when the politics showed up.

That Correia and Togerson are racists is also laughable. If you believe it, show some evidence.

The Sad Puppies opposition worked hard to push the narrative that Puppies are racist and sexist.

Their racist/sexist accusation comes down to "If Puppies are not FOR promoting Hugos for authors because of non-white race and non-male gender, then Puppies must be racist/sexist." Now there is a fallacious argument. The old "if you're not for us you're against us" nonsense.

Go executables are static by design. It is pretty great to be able to copy it into place and it just works. Add a couple other build options to remove the ability to bind to external C code and include a Go DNS resolver, and the binary can be put into a completely empty container. Now that's great. It's the difference between 8 MB and 300 MB containers.

The arguments about fixing bugs in shared libraries do apply, but that's a problem with containers too, so you need a policy for rebuilding containers with bugs as well as Go binaries with bugs.

It should not, indeed it must not matter that Firefox loads data from a dodgy website. It has to be safe to read it, render it and run the Javascript.

Because if it isn't then the browser is doomed to be cracked and exploited anyway. Attackers can break into "safe" websites and put their scripts there. Or buy advertisements to their malware.

So all the worry over loading links from untrusted sites is foolish because you cannot trust ANY site on the Internet. Not really.

There's a better argument to be made over the privacy implications.

Oh sure, why not backport DX12 to XP.

It would only involve porting all of the internal kernel changes, driver support, DLLs, etc.

So then what, you'd have Windows 10 with a XP shell on top. Yay.

It would be almost exactly like porting DRI3 from Fedora 22 back to RHEL 5. You merely need to recompile kernel, glibc, Xorg, glib, gtk, gnome and KDE.

Get right on that.

Compressed log files? Binary files, unrecoverable if they experience data corruption.

XML like tags? Structured data tagging. Also markers for resync in case of data corruption.

In fact, not very different from the systemd journal.

Well given that on his news website he says:

In fact if you go right to stallman.org it's current front and center at the top.

Time and time again I see news articles that seem to herald the idea that users are willing to sacrifice something like privacy for the use of software. Take Facebook for an example. You get a robust and snappy storage and website for communication at the cost of control over your life and privacy. And as I try to explain to people the tradeoffs most of them seem to be complacent. Even I myself use GMail, there's just no better mail service. Even if there were, I'd have to run the server from my home to be sure that I'm in control in it and it's truly free (by your definition). So given that much of the populace isn't even prepared technologically to harness truly free software, don't you think they have slowly accepted the trade offs and that the pros of your arguments -- though sound -- are only possibly realized by those skilled enough to edit source code or host their own mail server from their home?

I found your piece on selling free software to be pretty logical on paper. However, has it ever worked in the wild? Can you name companies or revenues that currently operate on this idea (and I'm not talking about services or support of the software)? I simply can't come up with a widely used monetized piece of software licensed under the GNU GPL whereby the original software was sold at a single price and shipped with the source code -- free for the original purchaser to distribute by the license's clauses. Can you list any revenue generation from that? I must admit I'm not exactly enamored with paying for free software (as in your definition of free) before it's written yet I cannot think of any other way this would fairly compensate the developer.