For a time, Java was the main language I used (for enterprise and web application development). Today the main language is probably Javascript, but I also use Swift, Kotlin, and C# (which strikes me as slightly improved Java) a lot. And I occasionally need to do something in C or C++, and I work in some F# development when I can (I like it best out of the ".NET" languages). I don't miss Java, but I don't mind other languages on top of the JVM. For example, I think Kotlin and Clojure are both excellent, and I like Scala, too.

I disabled all those alerts because they're annoying and ineffective. I wish I could disable the Presidential-level alert, too. If the President wants to contact me he can call or text, just like everyone else.

No

Options:

* Naked
* Petrified
* Both of the Above
* Hot Grits/Pants

Considering the show separate from a Tolkien connection (i.e., letting it stand on its own and not judging it for being different from Tolkien's books and stories), I'd rate it about 4 or 5 out of 10. Its biggest sin is that it's boring. Another big issue is that the main protagonist is unlikable. There are few other characters that you care much about, either. The writing is...uneven, at best, and outright laughably bad at worst (especially some of the dialogue). The story doesn't make a lot of sense, there are lots of meaningless divergences, meandering plot threads, plot armor that breaks verisimilitude, scenes that "have a point" but are way too much on the nose, and the "twists" are obvious to everyone (except the characters in the show, of course). The acting is not great, either, but I don't blame the actors in this case; I think it's poor writing (and poor dialogue).

When you add in the Tolkien elements it just goes from bad to worse. Terrible casting is a stand out. I'm not talking about casting for the invented characters (they're invented, after all), but for the canonical characters. Some of the greatest figures of the second age (e.g., Gil-Galad, Elrond, Celebrimbor) are cast (and written) as complete dorks. Heck, Celebrimbor doesn't look like a powerful Noldo of the line of Fëanor (or any other line of elf, for that matter); he looks like an old man wearing his grandmother's drapes as a robe. Then there are the timeline oddities and other changes from canon. I could go on at length, but I'll spare you. I understand that a different medium (e.g. TV or film vs. books) might benefit from some alterations, but when that's done it should serve the story, it's tone, etc. in the new medium. The divergences from canon in this show aren't like that at all; they're just kind of thoughtlessly done, even where they're not necessary. Given their approach, I think Amazon should've just skipped the entire Tolkien connection and done their own fantasy show. This thing is about as "Tolkien" as one of those Xena or Hercules shows. Even the show's apologists have started saying stuff like "you need to consider this show as a new or variant story in the overall mythology. It's not trying to tell exactly what Tolkien wrote." Yeah, no kidding. And don't get me wrong, I don't object to original characters and new stories; I think there's plenty of room for that. But I think such new stories are best told within the established framework, doing no damage to the themes, tone, major characters, known 'canon,' et cetera. If you're going to just do your own thing and largely ignore the details of the canon/framework, then why use the framework in the first place? (The only reasonable answer I can come up with for that is to use a popular "brand" for marketing purposes.)

Anyway, this is getting longer than I'd intended. Suffice it to say I really wanted this show to be good. Sadly, it's just not. It's a missed opportunity for something good and worthwhile. Disappointing.

To end with something positive: some of the visuals are nice.

Eh, I don't think "modern" is that important to someone who chooses emacs. For what it's worth, I used to use emacs as my main editor, but I ended up switch to vim. After getting past the learning curve I found that I preferred vim (or nvim), and some variant of vi is pretty much always present on any Linux system. I've also found myself using VS Code quite a bit, but vim is still my main editor, especially from the command line.

I've been running Arch as my main workstation since 2012. Some tips:

I update the system once a week. Before updating I check Arch News for any information on things which might special attention. Those have been few and far between. Updating frequently keeps things manageable, and checking Arch News first will give you a heads-up on anything out of the ordinary.

I avoid installing proprietary drivers. For example, I've been running AMD graphics cards and using the open source driver, and have avoided many issues because of that.

I manage software that isn't in the official repos, but is in the AUR, by having an "aur" directory in my home folder and then using git to checkout the AUR package repos. Once I week I use git pull to check those and see if there are any AUR updates that I want or need to install. If there are I use makepkg on the source repo(s) to install them. Early on I used an AUR package manager along with pacman, but I've found that just using git and makepkg makes more sense for me.

My experience with the above approach has been very good. There are only a couple of times that I ran into an issue after updating with the rolling release model and the approach, and I believe both those had to do with GNOME updates. Oh, there was also one time where I couldn't boot at all, but that one was my fault: I installed some non-packaged third-party software that clobbered some lib folder symlinks -- it had nothing to do with Arch's packaging or rolling release model. Early in my Arch usage I was running an NVIDIA card with proprietary drivers, and during that period I *did* have frequent problems after system updates. Moving away from proprietary drivers and always checking the Arch News for any important information made things much, much better. Lastly, the Arch documentation and forums are both quite good, which I think is an important benefit for the distro.

Arch isn't for everyone, but it isn't as scary as some people make out, and with the approach I describe above I've found that rolling release doesn't necessarily mean poor stability. Personally, after being on rolling release for this long (on my "daily driver" workstation) I find it hard to imagine going back. I wouldn't want to. Your mileage may vary, as always; just sharing my own experience with Arch.

I have a scheduled backup that runs dejadup and saves to an external drive with a RAID array. I also have certain folders in my home directory synced through Dropbox.

My dejadup backup has saved me at least once that I recall, when I had a hard drive failure.

I'd bet it's quite a bit higher than that, as far the infection rates go.

When Hewlett Packard split I thought HP Inc. kept most of the old hardware tech (which is where I'd think the Compaq connection would be), and HPE was more of a cloud platform-as-a-service kind of company. (But I can't claim to be well-informed on the matter, so I my impression could be mistaken.)

That sad fact is "why I can believe it." But I still say: use the right tool for the job. Desktop spreadsheets used like databases are...a plague.

I can't believe someone made the decision to use a desktop spreadsheet for this kind of data. Wait...no, actually I *can* believe it...

Yeah, I agree about "lack of aptitude and interest." I'm a professional developer. I started learning to program in the 70s, as well, even before my family owned a computer. I'd go to neighbors that had computers and ask if I could use them.

I have low expectations for broad classroom approaches like this. The best you can hope for is that the exposure will spark some interest from a few students. I doubt that most will get much out of it.

I was talking to my brother-in-law about this the other day. We both have sons and daughters who have grown up with computers, but none of our children have ever shown more than passing interest in learning to program. And, in my opinion, if you're going to be a good professional developer you need to love to program. It's a lifelong task, because things are always changing. You never stop learning. And if you think you can spend a few years "learning to program" and expect that you can make a career based on those few years, you're in for a rude surprise. At best, you'll be a low-level coder that rapidly falls behind and gets "stuck" (or maybe you could go the management route, instead). Good programmers are always learning, and always coding (even just "for fun").

I already work from home (I develop software).

My kids, who are currently on their spring break, just had that break extended another week by the school district.

That sounds like exactly the type of scenario I was expecting. The Clinton campaign connections don't shock me, because (as I mentioned) I would expect political connections to be a part of the "who gets to build this app" decision, and this was for the Democratic party's election process. I wouldn't automatically assume a conspiracy based on that, though.

A side-loaded app developed in the last two months with no large-scale testing, eh? I'd bet big money there was little or no security testing (certainly not by an independent entity), either.

Someone (or multiple someones) signing off on all this dropped the ball big-time. I'd guess that the ultimate decision makers were simply ignorant and in over their heads, when it comes to making decisions about tech in the election process. And I bet the heads that will roll won't be theirs.