Boy, the billionaires are really, really glad that you feel this way.

Well done. Though I presume many will be offended by your comparisons I feel as you do. and those who disagree might do well to perform some introspection.

I came from a Java background in 1999 and then discovered JavaScript. I got my first big job with JavaScript in a Ruby shop. Falling in love with Ruby centric talks about OO I applied them all to JavaScript. This was maverick as it wasn’t cool to like JS. Then as my company forced TypeScript at me and I had a chance to compare.

After 27 years programming and 13 dedicated to JavaScript I feel I can say that the advantages we get from TS are not the issues we actually have in production. The protections it offers haven’t (for me) been the issue to problems I’ve ran into. For every type issue that came up we had dynamic equivalents. == means three extra unit tests when === can get away with three less.

I have come to the understanding that much of the dynamic versus static type arguments are all strawmen. There are advantage on both sides and to exclude one over the other requires some kind of blindspot to the other. I can design and code in both confidentially. At home on my own side project I’m going to use JavaScript because I find it fun. At work I am going to use TypeScript because they told me to. If I were to run my own company I might choose a dynamic language but keep a Sauron-esque eye on everything so I can tell developers to produce quality code, documentation, and unit tests. Stop being lazy thinking some fancy compiler with magically make them think they are better coders.

Learning passively like this is not exclusive to in office work. It is culture. Remote work has no requirements to be isolated. Pair programming is just as effective in person as it is remotely in every instance Iâ(TM)ve done it. What hinders that communication is the work culture to shove people into closets and keep then from making those kinds of connections. And that has nothing to do with remote or not and everything to do with bad culture which happens in offices as well.

They removed my favorite item from their menu and will never bring it back. I at only that sandwich once a week. Can some one explain how the hell my order history personalized it off the menu? How can they personalize if they canâ(TM)t even make my personalized favorite sandwich?!

I'm concerned that his life experience and the length of it is in question concerning his daily driver. And also why all the judgments around it? There is no reason someone at any age couldn't enjoy a good game of Elden Ring or be a productive software developer. I hope everyday I am still designing software well into my 80's and beyond.

This make perfect sense to me. In fact Iâ(TM)ve had this as a personal theory ever since the last episode of ST:TNG where they introduced anti-time. For me thinking about the idea that freewill is deferred to the future making the present deterministic. Why am I here in this world right now? Because the events now are required to be where I will be in the future thus that information must travel back in time to ensure that outcome.

All I can offer is my own experiences with pair programming. I tend to dislike people, I fight with most points of views. I am neuro-divergent. I am an introvert according to Myers–Briggs. And every time I have pair programmed it has been the most wonderful experience and some of the best quality work produced. Please don’t discount pair programming just because it didn’t work for you. It works for many including industry leaders and innovators. And it can work for introverts as well. I spend most of my career wishing more people would pair programming with me.

I mean, develop all that stuff still, as a side project, when you think something has the potential to be disruptive. Companies like Mozilla want to innovate, they should try. But don't force it down our throats, and don't get greedy thinking that just because you made something (even if it's really cool) that it's useful in the real world. Pocket is a perfect example - I don't have any problems finding stuff to read and do on the web, why are you spending time solving that problem for me? The real answer is "We want to aggregate data about your habbits and sell it to supplement our income because it's 2018 and your mind is profitable to harvest. C'mon, everyone's doing it!"

You'd be surprised how much better your experience seems to be compared to most RDP users who remote in. Don't even get me started on Citrix, either.

Yeah you're absolutely right - Apple is a large company, and this whole "no one owns a Macintosh" meme is about as obviously outdated as my wide-leg JNCO jeans. It won't happen overnight (codebases need to shift, developers need training/experience etc) but in the end I'd chalk this up to a net-loss for desktop Linux.

>Do you believe rehabilitation is impossible or do you want revenge?

I don't believe that someone who commits mass murder can be rehabilitated, no. It isn't about revenge; it's about public safety.

Someone once pointed out that hoping a rapist gets raped in prison isn't a victory for his victim(s), because it somehow gives him what he had coming to him, but it's actually a victory for rape and violence. I wish I could remember who said that, because they are right. The score doesn't go Rapist: 1 World: 1. It goes Rape: 2.

What this man did is unspeakable, and he absolutely deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison. If he needs to be kept away from other prisoners as a safety issue, there are ways to do that without keeping him in solitary confinement, which has been shown conclusively to be profoundly cruel and harmful.

Putting him in solitary confinement, as a punitive measure, is not a victory for the good people in the world. It's a victory for inhumane treatment of human beings. This ruling is, in my opinion, very good and very strong for human rights, *precisely* because it was brought by such a despicable and horrible person. It affirms that all of us have basic human rights, even the absolute worst of us on this planet.

This is precisely why I lost all interest in Oculus the instant I heard that it had been acquired by Facebook.

And mankind's successor will match the same criteria. But there is no guarantee that it will be descended from us, and it will suck if we happen to be the generation that is going to win that lottery ticket.

Yes, the risk is low. We do things to mitigate low-risk things all the time. I also don't think this is going to happen in the next million years (statistically a one in sixty chance). But it behooves us to be able to more accurately gauge that risk. Right now, we can only give a very granular risk assessment. Funding the tracking of large asteroids is worthwhile on a number of levels, the scientific value being one of them. Being able to track rogue comets would be useful, too, but is much harder (and also a lower risk). If we could track these objects, which costs a fair bit of money, we would have a better window to deal with such an event. Like Hawking said, having people on different planets would also mitigate that risk.

I'm confident that life on earth will continue for the next 2 billion years, but I'm selfish enough to want that life to include descendents of humans.

So what you're saying is that...the extremely long copyright durations have no real impact on the bottom line of copyright holders? Or do you assume that people are more likely to pay for those classics?