Well I get the feeling this is what happened:

TFA - "Cool, we're making a new Star Wars. Let's do a sort of soft-reboot, where this new movie is a sequel, but it's also sort of a partial remake of the original Star Wars. You know, like maybe we can recapture some of the magic from the original trilogy, but make something new for this generation. That could be fun! We don't really have a plan for the next two yet, but we'll lay the groundwork for them to have some surprise twists and interesting reveals. I don't know... we'll figure something out!"

TLJ - "I don't want to make the same old boring predictable Star Wars movie. Let's do something creative and interesting. I remember seeing a train heist movie where they couldn't stop the train because the robbers would catch up, but they also couldn't keep the train moving forever, so let's do a sci-fi spin on that. Meanwhile, we can have a side-plot where some people go to a casino planet. We get to see more of the Star Wars universe, which could be cool. Maybe it could have some feeling of Casablanca, or the vibe of a WW2 French resistance story. It won't really connect very deeply with any of the other movies, but if we do this right, it could be a kind of fun interesting stand-alone movie."

TRoS - "Crap. What did we do? We had 3 movies to make an epic story, but instead we just sort of faffed about with a bunch of random side-plots that don't really make sense. We have no overarching plot and no idea where any of this is going. Over the course of two movies, we brought the New Republic from the government of the galaxy to being a handful of resistance fighters crammed together in the Millennium Falcon. How are they going to even come back from that?! Wait...! I have an idea. Let's find a 12 year-old who's a giant Star Wars fan, and just have him tell us what to write!"

SPOILERS AHEAD

The plot just makes no sense. The Emperor is back somehow. They don't explain how. Created the First Order in secret for some reason. I don't remember there being any explanation of why he didn't want to take control of the First Order already. Meanwhile, he has an enormous fleet of super-powerful ships that he was keeping secret-- again, no real explanation as to why. The First Order has taken over the Galaxy. The rebels are pretty much defeated. He could have shown up and say, "Hey, I'm still the Emperor and have been in control of all of this. This is my new super-powerful fleet, in case anyone wants to fight back, but I'm in charge again." No, he has to build a huge fleet *under the ocean* (for some reason) on some secret planet that nobody can get to (for some reason) where navigation systems don't work and the ships' shields don't work.

Ok, so they need to find the planet, so they need a magic mcguffin that can take them to this secret planet that's impossible to reach otherwise. Fine. How do they find the mcguffin? Well, there's an ancient Sith dagger that's somehow also a map to a shipwreck from just a few years ago. The dagger points to a chamber in the wrecked Death Star. The whole thing is destroyed, but there's still one door in one room that still works, and behind it there's a pristine room where an important relic is hidden. I guess someone went scavenging in the Death Star, found this very important relic in this one pristine room, but rather than taking it they manufactured an ancient Sith dagger to be a map to that location.

Then there's the whole ending. They take out a Star Destroyer by just landing on it with horses. None of the other Star Destroyer can do anything because that one Star Destroyer was in charge. Ok, whatever. Also, in spite of being brought down the resistence to literally such a small number of people that they can fit on the Millennium Falcon, Lando can somehow muster thousands of ships to come and make an attack on the Emperor's super-fleet.

Let's just pause there. In the first movie, they were basically the new government, but with one attack the First Order turned them into a rebellion again. In the second movie, the rebellion's whole fleet was destroyed and almost everyone involved was killed. In the third one, they couldn't get new people to stand up to the First Order. Even if there were people sympathizing with the rebellion, almost nobody had the guts to stand up to the First Order. But then Lando Calrissian flies around the galaxy saying, "Oh no, you're afraid now, but it's even worse than that. Not only are we getting crushed by the First Order, but the Emperor is back from the dead. He's that powerful, that he came back from the dead and has a new fleet of super-powerful Star Destroyers!" He flies around for 20 minutes spreading this terrifying news, and...

Everyone in the galaxy is like, "You son of a bitch! I'm in!"

Ok, now the Emperor wants to steal Rey's body so he can be young again. But then the Emperor can suddenly steal life energy, and he can steal super-powerful life energy from Ben and Rey because... they're a dyad or something. It's a totally new concept mentioned once, just a few minutes earlier, and now suddenly it's some huge deal. There's no explanation, but just accept that they're a dyad and that's the biggest deal in the world, enough that the Emperor can steal their life force and get superer super-powers. Great. He sucks the life out of them and they're dead.

But then Ben comes back to life, and then killed again. And then Rey back to life, summons all the power of all Jedi ever, and dies. Then Ben comes back to life again, and then magically brings Rey back to life again, and then he dies for no reason.

Does this sound like bad fan-fiction yet?

Because then Charlie from Lost shows up, and he almost makes out with a slug. And then Lando meets a young woman who was a storm trooper once, and he offers to fly her around the galaxy. It's supposed to be a big touching moment, I think?. And then Rey goes to Tatooine and decides she's a Skywalker. The end.

This is still a bit of a disagreement and/or misunderstanding about what "net neutrality" means. It doesn't necessarily mean that there can't be any kind of traffic shaping or prioritization, but that such shaping/prioritization can't be based on the endpoint or vendor. For example, you could potentially have QoS that prioritizes VoIP, but then that QoS shouldn't favor particular VoIP products or services. They could throttle web traffic, but they shouldn't be allowed to throttle all web traffic except for news sites owned by the ISP.

To use your car analogy, imagine GM owned the roads in your city, and were allowed to set any rules they like under the argument that they needed to be able to optimize the traffic system. However, they started making rules like, "People driving GM cars are permitted to go 45 MPH on this stretch of road, but non-GM cars have a speed limit of 5 MPH," or "GM cars can drive in the carpool lane even if there's only one person in the car," or even "No cars are allowed on this road except GM cars." That'd be a problem, right? Because that's not about optimizing traffic to benefit everyone. It's just anti-competitive rules designed to push people to buy more GM cars.

That's largely what net neutrality rules are about. Can Verizon, as an ISP, block Google services and force all of their customers to use AOL and Yahoo? Can Comcast throttle Netflix to the point where it's unusable to force people to sign up for XFINITY?

Sometimes the value of these things isn't in proving it, but in developing a method of proving it.

What I mean by that is, it's not like this is a burning question that we need a proof for, because we need to be absolutely certain that this will prove true in all circumstances. However, the development of a proof may include some novel idea, or an invention of a new mathematical concept.

If someone can figure out a way to prove this conjecture, they may then be able to figure out a more generalized proof that applies to your "billions of variations". If someone can do that, then we may have some new form of math.

Basically, this is how math is developed. Someone could have said, "Meh, the circumference of a circle is about 3 times the diameter." Or "If we need to know the area inside a curve, we can just estimate by measuring out squares and triangles that mostly fill up the space." And then we wouldn't have a lot of our science and technology.

I'm going to propose a broader, more fundamental, and bound-to-be-unpopular opinion and say, I don't think Slack should include rich text at all. If it makes sense to have any formatting, it's more for things programmers would do, e.g. marking things as code and syntax highlighting. I can see value in bullet lists, for example, but you can do that in text by starting the line with an asterisk-- which, not coincidentally, will automatically create a bullet list in Markdown.

This aren't presentations or print documents. It's a chat app. You're meant to be typing in quick text messages, not making beautifully crafted decorations.

But then, I'll admit that I'm someone who thinks that supporting HTML in email was a mistake.

I don't see any reason to think that Apple wouldn't support it if it's adopted as a standard. Maybe you're one of those people who get mad at all of those "proprietary" Apple technologies like AAC (created by MPEG) or Thunderbolt (made by Intel) or Mini DisplayPort (created by Apple but released without patent licensing fees). Or their super-proprietary Safari browser (based off KHTML which also became the basis of Chrome).

The reality is that Apple has been a big driver in pushing standards forward. They were perhaps the first company to go all-in on USB. Their OS has open source underpinnings based on FreeBSD (that's a bit of an oversimplification, but still). They pushed to stop using DRM on music purchases, and then pushed to use AAC instead of MP3 (AAC is just as open but requires fewer licensing fees). They jumped onboard with Intel's Thunderbolt standard before any other company. They helped develop CalDAV and CardDAV. I think Apple Messages still supports XMPP.

If you look around at the technology landscape and blame Apple for holding up standards, you don't have any idea what you're talking about. Take a closer look at companies like Facebook. Microsoft is and has been a major culprit. Even Google isn't perfect, stripping XMPP out of Google Talk and trying to turn it into a closed Slack alternative.

And anyway, why wouldn't they incorporate this new protocol into their own app? If they want people to use that app, it benefits them to support the protocol instead of pushing people off to use some other protocol.

It's a great comic that's making a good point, but I kind of hate when people bring this one up because they take it to mean, "There's no point in creating standards."

HTML is a great standard. No, it's not perfect, but the internet works far better than it would if each browser and every site where just making up their own standards. SMTP is a pretty crappy standard all things considering, but still, it keeps email flowing between providers. The development of the USB connector made computer peripherals way easier to deal with. Unicode makes it much easier for people to communicate with each other across the world.

We should have a standard, platform independent, provider independent messaging protocol. It's dumb that you're supposed to have different and entirely separate accounts and client-software for all the different messaging platforms just to talk to people. Transmitting a couple lines of text is not so complicated that we shouldn't be able to come up with a single standard that would work for everyone. The only need that would be difficult to satisfy is companies like Facebook and Google wanting to force everyone to have accounts on their services.

Why have it linked to a phone number?

I feel like one of the big weaknesses of SMS is how tightly it's bound to my phone. My phone isn't capable of having multiple SMS accounts, and I can't receive SMS messages on my other devices.

Yeah, there are work-arounds. I can get another messaging app that's not SMS, and some devices have methods of relaying SMS to and from other devices, but why not use a system where that's totally unnecessary? Messaging should really work more like email, where it's not bound to your cell phone carrier at all (e.g. you can use Gmail on any cell phone network), people on different platforms can message each other (e.g. Gmail and Outlook.com users don't have trouble emailing each other), and you can use whatever client you want (I can use webmail, Outlook, Thunderbird, or something else to access my email).

It's actually pretty absurd that we accept a system where messaging is tied to a numerical identifier that's tied to a specific network provider, and isn't easily transferable, especially since despite all the restrictions, it's still completely insecure. Something like Signal or iMessage would be preferable by far, except that we need a standard that's not dependent on a specific hosting provider.

Getting rid of your personal devices won't matter. There will be cameras and microphones everywhere, and your privacy will be invaded. Going back to a feature phone isn't going to stop that.

Really, we need a new legal framework better suited to the technology. There need to be limits on data protection and data warehousing. There should be a right to repair devices and machinery that you own. The copyright system should be overhauled.

We shouldn't be in a position where we stick with outdated technology simply because the new technology is being abused. The people abusing the new technology are going to keep abusing it, even if you don't use it yourself.

Weird. People are concerned about living in a police state where surveillance is ubiquitous, but don't mind having laws that limit mentally ill people from having military-grade assault rifles? I can't imagine why.

And your argument is that just because a public shooting isn't the statistically most likely cause of death for any individual person, they're not actually dangerous? Is sounds like you're the one who's bad at math.

What you're saying is sort of true. There's a lot of stuff that goes into the TV industry beyond the production of the TV show.

Someone has to raise the money, set the budget, hire the directors, handle the business-end, and those are the producers. There are some that don't do much, but they might still be somehow instrumental toward producing the show. Then you have a lot of marketing people, creating promos, building social media campaigns, making cross-promotional deals with fast-food restaurants or toy manufacturers, or whatever.

Sure, you could do with out a lot of this. Netflix could just produce a bunch of shows with lean production values and small marketing budgets, and spend less money on some of the peripheral stuff. But they can't cut all of it, and it's not clear that they won't cut them all. If they want to include a trendy song in the soundtrack, someone needs to negotiate that. If they want to include a toy for a kids show in Happy Meals, someone has to strike a deal with McDonalds and line up a toy manufacturer.

If they can at least get rid of the advertising and focus on pleasing the viewers, at least, that will strip out a whole lot of nonsense.

I don't know that it's worse than any normal card. They're just saying, don't rub it against materials that tend to transfer color because it might discolor it. Don't scratch it up or it might get scratched up.

Other cards can also get discolored and scratched up. It's just that, mostly, people don't care what their credit cards look like. Apple seems to be anticipating, probably correctly, that there will be Apple Card users that'll freak out because of a little cosmetic damage to their snazzy white credit card, even if it makes no difference to how it functions.

It's basically designed to be a virtual credit card, stored in Apple Wallet and used with Apple Pay. There's some Mint-like reporting right in Apple Wallet that tells you where your money is going, you have immediate access when the card is approved, and support via texting right in the app. They're trying to be all modern and convenient, though you could argue about whether they're succeeding. The way they present it is, the physical card is more there for if you need it in a situation where Apple Pay isn't accepted.

Also, the cash-back deal is pretty good if you actually use Apple Pay.

I'm not arguing that you should get it. If none of that is appealing to you, then it's probably not worth getting. I'm just telling you why someone might want the Apple-branded card, aside from some kind of brand-loyalty or cool-factor.

The solution is to not use self-signed certs. Either use a recognized CA or set up your own CA and add that to your trusted certs.

Of course, they make the whole process unreasonably expensive and stupidly complicated. I can't really blame people for not wanting to do it "the right way".

The problem is also using setting up a system where every site/service has its own password, writing its own authentication. Not only does it mean that people have hundreds of passwords to manage, but some of them are going to do a bad job securing them.

We should really come up with a better system for authentication. There should probably be some mix of PKI and SSO for individual use instead of requiring Enterprise-grade setups to avoid needing a password manager.