It seems obvious that what is required is some case history - so why not provide it? Have somebody create a github repo with a document explaining the situation, have them officially withdraw permission, and have some users of the repo sue. Obviously, the whole thing would need to be funded somehow.

Instead of using a third-party emails, somebody should build (if it doesn't exist already) a blockchain based messaging system. People would create "accounts" that consist of a uuid, and (short) messages would be distributed publicly via the chain (but signed via PGP or some such).

In the old days, developers who got burned out often became project managers. There's a lot fewer project managers and other forms of middle management these days. I know people who have become dedicated scrum masters, but they often don't get paid well.

To stay on top as a developer, you need to learn new things every single day. As one gets older, that becomes harder - and for many people it eventually becomes more work than its worth. At that point a clock starts ticking. Three years...five years...at some point somebody who doesn't learn something new about software every single day will get out of date. The other thing is something my dad warned me about decades ago - as one gets older, there's a good chance that people problems become more interesting that software problems. If that's the case, then lack of enthusiasm probably equates to boredom - and again, the clock starts ticking.

It would be cool if SpaceX renamed Dragon to Trampoline in response.

Sounds like a Ponzi or chain letter. All it would take would be a large cohort to break the bank. Or a smaller than usual cohort to reduce the taxation collected below the required amount. If they're going to go the government-funded post-secondary route, it should be based on general tax revenue, not on a specific tax. ALSO: wouldn't this be a disincentive for some people to go to university (i.e. if I know I'm going to incur additional taxes as a result, will I not go overseas, or pay for private college, or just skip post-secondary education entirely - particularly in light of things like MOOCs)?

The Martian soil is full of really nasty chlorine compounds that would make it hard for living things to grow in it. Are they saying those compounds weren't there back then?

"I'm sorry Dave, you're not cute enough to do that..."

Something along these lines. The problem is that there's a proliferation of authentication schemes owned by various companies, and implemented in a scattershot fashion. What is really needed is a standard that can be implemented by many vendors, and that allows users to control their own data.

I'm not a shill for anyone. Hmm. Maybe for myself. BrowserID uses emails for authentication. Why do we even need to have that? What if you want to change your email address? And why should websites have your email address unless you want them to do so. What I had in mind was that users can create any number of profiles for themselves on their browser, each with flexible set of fields for things like their name, and each field having privacy options. They then can register that profile on a given website; view a list of sites that are authenticated against a given profile; change privacy options for any given field/website combination without going to the site; deregister from a site etc etc. The key is that everything would happen through some kind of negotiated and secure back-channel. Advantages include heightened privacy for users, the ability to have many profiles (each of them having some kind of unique identifying certificate) that can be used globally, and the ability to be able to manage their internet identity from their own end.

I've implemented sites that use a variety of third party authentication schemes. Its a nuisance for users (multiplicity of accounts, more insecure passwords to remember etc) and a nuisance for developers. Why are we still doing this? Authentication (and user profiles for that matter) belong in the user's browser. I'm not talking about Chrome's password wallet. I'm talking about a certificate-based system that allows the user to control from their end which sites are authenticated, and what data they should have access to. Sites would then implement a simple API (possibly combined with meta data on the front end to let the browser know details) that would allow for login, signing up, or changing particulars. The process could be made completely transparent for users. I have this partially implemented as an insecure proof of concept browser plugin. It wouldn't take too much work to get it running, although it really should be core browser functionality instead.

The Golden Globe by John Varley?