You don't need them. Maven has deterministic dependency resolution (unless you use version ranges, but don't do that), so you just write your dependencies. (The flipside is you may want to get in the habit of doing something like versions:use-latest-releases as a regular housekeeping task so that you pick up any security updates, but that tends to be less of an issue in Java-land for other reasons)
No country provides a lot of support. Some countries provide more but inevitably if you poll people they’ll mention that they mention significant financial deterrents, not to mention things like climate change, all of which are valid. People only need one of them to be true to decide to have fewer children, while society needs to help address all of them.
For example, if your government provides housing and childcare support—and say that’s the unicorn where those are consistently available, high quality, and cover the full cost—but still culturally tends to mommy-track careers into dead ends, despite doing those other things well you are going to have a lot of women decide not to risk multiple decades of lifetime earnings.
Yes, support does not have to be financial. If you read the entire article you posted note the experts quoted made the same point: opportunity cost is real. Career impact is real. The shift to getting educated and established in a career is real.
Societies have to address many different sources of no because the only reason rates used to be higher in the past was women not having a choice.
Archivists and librarians have to think in terms of practicality: if many tools exist to read something and it’s a mainstream software product, the odds are good that they’ll be unable to use those files 50 years from now. Not certain, but good, and that matters with limited budget and ability to tell the rest of the world what format to provide things in.
This can require nuance: for example, PDF has profiles because the core format is widely supported but you could do things like embed plugin content from now-defunct vendors and they would only want the former for long-term preservation.
Think about how you’d have felt if a scientist you respected had joined the RJ Reynolds tobacco research institute. Would their prior achievements overshadow a gross ethical failure?
This administration is worse, both because of the wholesale gutting of the American scientific research establishment and all of the various corruption issues on display. As General Morrison put it, “The standard you walk past, is the standard you accept.” Anyone who signed up knew who they’d be working for and has to accept that will be a major part of their reputation.
There’s always a tension in democratic societies, however, where civilian oversight is important. Claiming the war is going really well until asking for $200,000,000,0000 because it isn’t has little military benefit compared to the political ramifications of preventing public oversight.
We learned from WikiLeaks that the US government classified (hid) significant information that was not relevant to national security, simply to conceal information about the war effort that would likely have turned public opinion against the war.
That is a clear abuse of power, which like most of the abuses revealed by Wikileaks, Snowden, etc., get solid bipartisan support.
MSNBC is marginally center-left and they’re broadly considered to follow mainstream journalistic standards. Whether or not you personally dislike them, it’s highly unlikely that they ran a story citing sources who don’t exist and the text makes it clear that their reporting is based on that information and has not been confirmed independently.
It’s MSNBC after Comcast spun NBC Universal out and then NBC Universal decided to spin their cable channels out into Versant. The name changed last year so they wouldn’t use the NBC name & logo of a company they were no longer part of.
In any case, my point was simply that these are mostly the same journalists playing by the same rules as before. It’s not three Moldavian bloggers pretending to be midwesterners.
Those three Moldavian bloggers have a lot to answer for. Or two Iranians and one Russian. Interesting how influence accounts/campaigns fall offline with country internet outages.
I think that’s right, with the ire coming from the perception of being cheated somehow. There’s a fair group of people who think anything other than changing the price or the product name is deceptive, and they’ll keep talking about it that way even if other people don’t see it as worse than a price increase.
The ire comes from the actual deception. Why do companies make products worse rather than bumping the price? It's not because they think that's what people prefer. It's because they hope that at least some buyers won't notice the change. People think it's deceptive because it is.
That comparison really makes the contrast clear: losing TLS would’ve put millions of people either into full downtime or immediately at significant risk (you can’t uncapture data). Losing DNSSEC, however, placed no one at risk and improved uptime.
There’s a reason why one of the two has roughly 10% adoption after three decades and the other is high 90-something percent.
reply