You need to read The Secret Barrister novels, written by a real criminal-law barrister.

The UK courts are an absolute mess of chaos, that's not the lawyer's or the judges fault.

You would think that with a former-lawyer as the prime minister now it would get sorted, but they've made only token changes to an absolutely nonsensical court-appointment system that operates largely on constant fire-fighting and ill-preparedness and throwing lawyers to the wolves making them run from case to case with little to no preparation or warning.

It's continued because "that's how it's always been done" but the court system outgrew the capacity decades ago.

So does... Starlink own space now?

Maybe if you hadn't sent up countless thousands of satellites without asking anyone but the US, people will give a damn about where they were.

If you are using signed and end-to-end encrypted emails, let me tell you:

You're merely using email as a transport mechanism, where ANY OTHER SUCH MECHANISM would suffice and be just as secure.

Including things like Jabber, etc.

Email is utterly monopolised because if you want to send/receive email to the major players... you MUST abide by whatever ridiculous restrictions they put on things (e.g. 10 DNS lookups for SPF, blacklists, domain verification, spam categorisation, etc.) regardless. Even if you're only using it as a communications medium for encrypted, signed comms, you still have to comply.

Email as a protocol needs to die. The stuff we do by email can be done PROPERLY AND BETTER by just basing the same top layers on something else that actually works and does the end-to-end encryption, domain verification, signing, authnetication etc. for you anway).

Bolting shit onto email to make it "work" is no different to how bolting shit onto FTP to make it "secure" was. You still have to deal with NAT traversal, packet-rewriting, etc. and all kinds of other nonsense that come FROM that use of a terrible, inefficient, outdated protocol as the base of your communications.

Email just needs to die.

That's all there is too it.

It was designed for a different era, and makes many, many terrible assumptions, and throws most of them out of the window in the worst possible way at the worst possible time.

Plus, it's built on "honesty", and everything security, or authentication, or even just claiming who you actually are as an email sender are all bolt-ons that don't work to their full extent.

Even with DNSSEC+SPF+TLS+DKIM+greylisting+limiting.... there's still no way to reliably know who can see your email, and that it's secured end-to-end and that people are who they APPEAR to be, and no way to reliably discard email that you don't want to receive or people have no place sending in the first place.

We need to just bin the whole thing. POP3, IMAP, SMTP, the lot.

I have nothing Microsoft at home.

Yeah, sure, I'm an IT geek, but it's probably the first time that's happened since I first used a DOS disk back in the day (as before that all my computers weren't PCs at all but small home computers).

Windows 11 literally forced me off Windows at home, I haven't run Office at home in decades, and I now need to be paid to manage Microsoft systems of any kind.

Microsoft told me that Windows 10 would be the last version of Windows. And you know what? In my case, they were right.

That might be why a feature exists, or maybe even why a particular paid library was chosen instead of another. That doesn't explain why the code is written the way it was, which is the point of documentation. Why the feature exists is the realm of the PRD, not the design doc.

Of course if those aren't securities, then the entire site is illegal as it's operating as a securities exchange. That's their legal argument for why they aren't gambling sites, and shouldn't be regulated by state gaming commissions. So expect the full might of all those prediction market sites to be lining up against that argument and for finding him guilty.

One of the best things of running Linux instead of Windows is that even if I choose to install a binary driver, it doesn't come with a bunch of "companion" apps and background services and a 4GB LLM, a game launcher, an update program, and whatever other nonsense people want to shovel onto me.

Because if it did, distros would revolt and/or ship a version that was just the driver.

You're a graphics card. Act like it. All you need is a driver, nothing more, nothing less.

Scalping isn't, and shouldn't be, illegal. You own the ticket, you should be able to do what you want with it, including reselling it.

And no, getting rid of scalpers wouldn't make ticket prices higher. Scalpers exist because the concert ticket prices are lower than what the market will actually bear. If a theater full of people are willing to pay 1K for a concert and they sell the ticket for 500, a scalper can make a profit via arbitrage. The only actual way to get rid of scalpers is to raise the prices to the sky (like 2-5x current prices) and slowly bring down prices over time until they're all sold. But my guess is you probably wouldn't like that any better, as the end price would likely be higher than the current scalpers price.

I like updating my Vivaldi browser.

The apt version just sets a flag during the update and any currently-running Vivaldi browser picks up on it and shows a small "update" button in its browser bar.

You can just carry on using it, obviously. Or you click the small update button and it will update the browser and carry on.

I love the way that it's a) part of the entire apt system so still under your control, b) apt upgrades don't need to kill/restart applications (Windows really needs to learn this), and c) it just detects an update underneath, lets you know, and waits for you to decide when your want to close your browser.

It's very subtle and very simple, but it's a whole world of difference compared to Windows, and a show of how an application and an OS update mechanism can co-operate to the user's advantage.

Too little, too late.

I moved on to better OS when you started messing with stuff and REFUSED to even give me an option to put it back how it was.

Modern Windows UI/UX literally and actually hinders my workflow because of enforced nonsense that I don't want.

No, it's more about how teams work. Teams have a scope. They don't typically go beyond that scope. So if my team owns the Foo and Bar modules, I work on those. But if there's little important work on Foo and Bar, but a lot of important work to be done on Baz, it's generally organizationally difficult for us to work on Baz. Typically we need to be lent out by our manager and seconded to the other team. Which can be a lot of red tape and politics.

Now if you're imagining some alternate world where programmers an be moved at will- then we're already one big team instead of multiple small teams.

And no, a smaller team doesn't win every time. If it did, then then smallest team possible is teams of 1 and we'd all do that. There are sweet spots, which depend on the organization, the work to be done, and the importance of that work. For some that's bigger, for some smaller. I've definitely worked on teams that were both too small for the work, and that were too big.

They can, under some circumstances. If the scope of what they work on is too small to fill the team's feature set. Or if the work they would be doing is significantly less important than other work to be done, having them in one large team makes it easier to move to more important work and can get critical features built faster. In that case it may not be overall more work done, but it may move the important stuff quicker. If larger teams weren't useful on some level, we wouldn't have teams at all- we'd all be individuals.

They're one of the 4 biggest stock brokers in the US. If you aren't trolling, you're showing yourself to be really ignorant.

In the end- good engineers with sufficient experience and support will get stuff working with any methodology. Bad ones or ones insufficiently supported will fail with any methodology.

There are some things that agile works well for, but it's really limited to domains where you can quickly build something tangible for feedback and you have stakeholders willing and able to give frequent feedback. UIs are a good example. It's a horrible fit for anything that requires actual research, or that can't be shown to low technical knowledge customers frequently (in other words anything that actually needs weeks or months of backend work, algorithm writing, or infrastructure to be written).