People have no right to not be offended. They need to get over it and learn some tolerance.
I'm not quite sure where you get this right to be not offended thing. It's a private event, so we're not dealing with restriction from the government. In fact, PyCon has a code of conduct (that's since been revised/clarified). That's the entire reason that PyCon staff escorted the two men out of the conference.
From the updated PyCon code of conduct:
All communication should be appropriate for a professional audience including people of many different backgrounds. Sexual language and imagery is not appropriate for any conference venue, including talks.
Be kind to others. Do not insult or put down other attendees. Behave professionally. Remember that harassment and sexist, racist, or exclusionary jokes are not appropriate for PyCon.
Attendees violating these rules may be asked to leave the conference without a refund at the sole discretion of the conference organizers.
She thinks she has the right to post their pictures and quote a private conversation in public, but they're wrong for making a dirty joke (which wasn't directed or told to her) in private conversation?
I'm not sure where you're getting the impression that this was a private conversation. It was a setting where they were expected to be quiet, and they weren't. They shouldn't have been talking in the first place, and instead they were talking loud enough for others to hear and exchanging inappropriate jokes. Per Richards' blog post, the speaker was talking about inspiring the next generation of coders. If the two guys were so disinterested that they needed to have an off-topic conversation, or in need of so much privacy... they should have gone elsewhere. Yeah Richards was talking as well (responding to someone else's remarks). Were I there that would have done two things: 1.) annoyed the hell out of me 2.) served as an indication that whatever I say will be heard by other people. In fact, from the blog post, the jokes were a response to a public conversation between Richards and someone else. These two guys (should have) had zero expectation of privacy.
Um, yes. You're not going to see her tweet containing the dick joke automatically unless you go looking for it. OTOH, the two guys were being loud enough that someone (and likely more than just one person) heard their back and forth.
Whether or not you're into penis jokes it's, IMO, worth making a distinction between a talking loudly at a conference and a twitter mention. IIRC, her twitter post was semi-private, being automatically visible to the intended recipient (and potentially mutual followers) but nobody else. Someone could see that she posted that, but they'd have to go looking. Not only that, but twitter is a medium for both professional and casual postings. OTOH, if you're talking loud enough to be overheard in a crowded conference hall that's far less private, but is typically intended to be a more formal setting than twitter. From what I can tell, she wasn't eavesdropping, but the two guys were being loud enough to be disruptive (regardless of whether the topic of their conversation was appropriate or offensive).
Look, I enjoy a good penis joke... but I you know what? I'm a guy and I get tired of the frat house / Bevis & Butthead mentality that seemingly pervades so many tech things. I went to the last MongoSF with my then-boss. At one of the talks I sat next to a woman who was an employee for a government contractor looking to glean some insight into fixing the problems they were having with their Oracle to Mongo migration. I spent some time before the talk picking her brain. At every opportunity my boss interrupted with jokes and comments that were off-topic at best. After the talk, my boss came up to me and asked if I got her number and if was going to fuck her. Is it really that hard to act in a semi-professional manner in public? Dunno, I've made a point of not going to tech conferences with my boss any longer, so. There's a time and a place for dick jokes, and a conference is neither that time nor that place.
What amuses about this situation is how much all of the free speech champions are nailing Adria to the wall for someone else's actions. Free speech is good and well unless you don't agree with it or the reactions to it, right? Right-o.
So? The problems with the Vega were not immediately apparent. OTOH the promise of the Vega was immediately apparent. Same with the Alliance (which also garnered awards from the French press and French auto buying public). The Merkur range, OTOH, suffered mostly from poor marketing. These car of the year awards aren't about who's built the longest lasting, most reliable car. They're about who's built the flashiest, most innovative car.
Batteries will fail, usually in some sort of spectacular manner. Their specific chemistry doesn't matter. In fact this is so well known, and the possibility of a fire was so well anticipated that Boeing did indeed design a containment cage for these batteries. Take a look at the pictures from the Boston incident. The heat damage was pretty well contained (the containment vessel was damaged quite significantly, but the rest of the nearby electronics remained intact). What *wasn't* contained, and what likely got the 787 grounded in the first place was the electrolyte solution. It's my understanding that unlike other types of batteries (lead acid, NiCd, NiMH) the big problem with the electrolyte solution in Li-Ion batteries isn't that it's corrosive. The problem is that the Li-Ion electrolyte solution is flammable.
That said, it's also my understanding that the batteries in both the Japanese 787s were fairly new (one was in a new plane, one had recently been replaced).
Of this type? Two. The APU and the main battery. They are identical and thus interchangeable such that if the main battery is not charged or otherwise not functioning before a flight, you can swap the APU battery in its place. There are, IIRC, other batteries scattered throughout the plane. Unsure if they're Li-Ion or not.
One of the planes was about a year old, the other a couple weeks. The older plane had seen its Li-Ion batteries replaced in more recent times, and the two suspect batteries were within 30 serial numbers of each other. If they're wearing out *that* quickly I'd be worried.
Except that Boeing ran into problems with the batteries before production. I've got exactly zero idea how accurate this piece is, but it's an interesting (if rambling) read:
The worrying part of the "thermal issues" is not how the battery containment box looks, it's that (according to some reports) electrolyte got splashed outside of the box.
Alcatel/Thales wrote the train control software for the San Francisco Municipal Railway (SF had to sue Thales to get their shit working even half-way decently), the in-flight entertainment for some (all?) of Air Canada's planes the last time I flew them (the whole system had to be rebooted repeatedly), and they designed the chipsets for the early popular DSL modems. I can't say I've got fond memories of any of these products.
There have been a lot of lessons learned since SW111. The biggest lesson is, IMO, that of a quick response. One of the big problems with SW111 (and AC797) was that delays (a matter of seconds in the case of AC797) made the difference between life and death. The ANA pilot declared an emergency, got the plane on the ground, and got the passengers off ASAP.
It hasn't been clarified which battery was problematic in the most recent 787 incident. If it was the APU (the one that caught fire in Boston) or the main battery, Boeing designed for the "one of those batteries catches fire" case. Both are enclosed in a fire resistant enclosure, and both are designed so that smoke from such a fire is vented away from the cabin. That's a gigantic difference from SW111 and AC797 where the fires occurred in an area that was not designed to contain fire.
There are conflicting reports of smoke, and conflicting reports as to which battery was at fault in the latest instance... but barring smoke in the cabin, it likely wouldn't have ended up much worse (a couple of injuries from using the emergency slides).
Yeah, we use ZTE modems (embedded stuff) at work. It's a tossup between the support and the product as to which is actually worse. None of our vendors enjoy selling ZTE products. Our standard policy is to ship the modems from the vendor to ZTE to ensure proper configuration. We've had one batch that was provisioned for a Chinese telecom, so we ended up "roaming" on our carrier and were assigned IP addresses owned by a Chinese company. All of the ZTE documentation for this particular modem is for the latest version of the firmware (which is not backwards compatible with the previous version of the firmware). Well, despite sending all of these things back to ZTE, only a handful of the modems have the current, documented version of the firmware. Despite asking for documentation for the older version of the firmware, ZTE has refused to provide any. Their solution is to recall hundreds of modems, ship them to ZTE and hope for the best. The firmware is not user updatable.
No. Thanks.
I feel for any carrier that things hawking ZTE phones will be a reasonable experience.
The value here, IMO, is the insight into the candidate's thought process. I certainly wouldn't have one correct solution in mind If they give up or can't come up with an answer, I'd move on pretty quickly. If someone gave an answer like you did, I'd probably see what it would take to steer them towards a more flexible answer.
I am aware that portversion (part of the portupgrade suite) is much faster. I was using it until portupgrade broke. I did just check and it appears as if portupgrade is suddenly working again. Definitely not predictable enough for me to want to keep using.
I am/was using portmaster because portupgrade is broken on my system (it chokes on the pciids package). Portmaster is fast(er), but is unbelievably verbose, and its default settings are frustrating. Portupgrade defaults to saving old libraries, saving the need to recompile EVERYTHING. Portmaster does not. Portupgrade will keep distfiles around. Portmaster will sporadically prompt you to delete all of the associated distfiles. Portupgrade will show you the progress of the files it's downloading. Portmaster will show you that it's blocked, waiting for something to download (it will keep spamming your console with this rather useless message until the file has finished downloading... given how unreliable some of the default mirrors are this can add quite a bit of time to installs/upgrades unless you're paying attention to bandwidth usage elsewhere).
Yes, I'm sure portng is going to be a step up. I'm sure that I could learn how to use portmaster. But in the end, the Debian tools are far, far more intuitive and expedient for me. Maybe it's time to test out Debian/FreeBSD.
The ports system is an absolute nightmare. Sure you've got things like portmaster and portupgrade (the latter is currently broken with no fix in sight). I spend far more time mangling ports than I do dealing with package management on any Debian based system. It took over forty seconds(!!) on an otherwise idle system (Ivy Bridge i5 w/ SSD) to list all the installed ports and their versions (pkg_version). Using the ports system is akin to pulling teeth as far as I can tell.
The problems with X, for me, have mainly been lack of driver support (Ivy Bridge support is pants). But that's a whole 'nother ball of wax.
Agreed. I've been using FreeBSD off and on since 2.2.2. Despite some really eye watering bugs with Ubuntu (especially their ec2 instances), FreeBSD is just more tedious and more frustrating to use. But... FreeBSD has the one killer feature for me: ZFS. It's portable in a pinch and ensure a decent amount of data integrity. Hammer, BTRFS, etc don't offer that kind of flexibility.
For the upgrade from 7.x to 8.x I used "freebsd-update". I forgot to disable the cron task, so after falling asleep the machine proceeded to lunch itself. Fine. User error. Again I tried "freebsd-update" to apply security patches. Guess what? "freebsd-update" doesn't handle new files gracefully, and again it lunched itself. Sure, there was an easy fix (download the single missing file that threw a wrench into the works), but the maintainer of "freebsd-update" knew of the problem and, as far as I can tell, just ignored it. Too much manual intervention is required to keep a FreeBSD system running compared to Linux.
I decided to tempt fate again with the upgrade from 8.x to 9.x (to see if the much promised support for Intel graphics chips was usable -- lesson learned, despite being in the release notes it's pre-alpha at best). Well, this time "freebsd-update" didn't mess anything up, the new kernel did. Turns out what FreeBSD 9.x and FreeBSD < 9.x consider BSD disk labels are two very separate things. My ZFS pools vanished. All sorts of fun ensued (there's that pesky data integrity thing). While FreeBSD 8.x would recognize the pool, 9.1 both missed and corrupted the ZFS magic bits. UGH.
Then there's the ports system. A clusterfuck if I've ever seen one. I've been using 'portupgrade' to ease some of the pain. And it works. Until it doesn't. It's definitely not particularly compatible with ruby 1.9. It's utterly confused by the versioning on the ruby 1.9 port. Upgrading (as of this week) to the latest version of the "pciids" port breaks "portupgrade" with no clean way to back these things out. When mucking about with all the updated XOrg stuff (see above about trying to get Intel graphics to work) I discovered that if you're not using "portupgrade" it's super easy to install duplicate, conflicting versions of a package with no clean way of backing this out. Compare this to Debian based distros where dpkg -i will neatly handle upgrades without lunching your system. While compiling is something of a pain, there are out of date binary packages that are sorta available. The real pain is just that the ports toolchain sucks rocks.
Oh, and watching trivial bugs languish for years got frustrating too. Ah well.
The reason that Apple gets singled out is because they go to such lengths to make sure you see the "Designed by Apple in California" every time you open one of their products, to trigger the "rah rah USA company!" emotional response. If they didn't go to such lengths to intentionally manipulate people, and also if they didn't position themselves as a premium brand when, in fact, their shit is made out of the same components and made in the same facilities as everybody else's shit, they might have a justifiable argument against being singled out.
This is potentially a step in the right direction, at least. Nowhere near enough to take them out of the "do not recommend, do not buy" category though.
When the browser asks you if you want to use one of these features, just click No. No one is forcing you to use a Facebook siderbar.
Meanwhile, the Mozilla folks have been dodging HTML4 and CSS3 for over twelve years. You tell me, what sounds like a better use of time: bloating the browser with some bullshit Facebook-specific plugin or allowing for decimal aligned numbers in tables?
Sadly, Firefox becomes less and less relevant as they try the most hamfisted ways to maintain relevance.
Slashdot Mirror
People have no right to not be offended. They need to get over it and learn some tolerance.
I'm not quite sure where you get this right to be not offended thing. It's a private event, so we're not dealing with restriction from the government. In fact, PyCon has a code of conduct (that's since been revised/clarified). That's the entire reason that PyCon staff escorted the two men out of the conference.
From the updated PyCon code of conduct:
She thinks she has the right to post their pictures and quote a private conversation in public, but they're wrong for making a dirty joke (which wasn't directed or told to her) in private conversation?
I'm not sure where you're getting the impression that this was a private conversation. It was a setting where they were expected to be quiet, and they weren't. They shouldn't have been talking in the first place, and instead they were talking loud enough for others to hear and exchanging inappropriate jokes. Per Richards' blog post, the speaker was talking about inspiring the next generation of coders. If the two guys were so disinterested that they needed to have an off-topic conversation, or in need of so much privacy... they should have gone elsewhere. Yeah Richards was talking as well (responding to someone else's remarks). Were I there that would have done two things: 1.) annoyed the hell out of me 2.) served as an indication that whatever I say will be heard by other people. In fact, from the blog post, the jokes were a response to a public conversation between Richards and someone else. These two guys (should have) had zero expectation of privacy.
Um, yes. You're not going to see her tweet containing the dick joke automatically unless you go looking for it. OTOH, the two guys were being loud enough that someone (and likely more than just one person) heard their back and forth.
AFAIK this is the penis joke she made:
http://i.imgur.com/1ND42rS.png
Whether or not you're into penis jokes it's, IMO, worth making a distinction between a talking loudly at a conference and a twitter mention. IIRC, her twitter post was semi-private, being automatically visible to the intended recipient (and potentially mutual followers) but nobody else. Someone could see that she posted that, but they'd have to go looking. Not only that, but twitter is a medium for both professional and casual postings. OTOH, if you're talking loud enough to be overheard in a crowded conference hall that's far less private, but is typically intended to be a more formal setting than twitter. From what I can tell, she wasn't eavesdropping, but the two guys were being loud enough to be disruptive (regardless of whether the topic of their conversation was appropriate or offensive).
Look, I enjoy a good penis joke... but I you know what? I'm a guy and I get tired of the frat house / Bevis & Butthead mentality that seemingly pervades so many tech things. I went to the last MongoSF with my then-boss. At one of the talks I sat next to a woman who was an employee for a government contractor looking to glean some insight into fixing the problems they were having with their Oracle to Mongo migration. I spent some time before the talk picking her brain. At every opportunity my boss interrupted with jokes and comments that were off-topic at best. After the talk, my boss came up to me and asked if I got her number and if was going to fuck her. Is it really that hard to act in a semi-professional manner in public? Dunno, I've made a point of not going to tech conferences with my boss any longer, so. There's a time and a place for dick jokes, and a conference is neither that time nor that place.
What amuses about this situation is how much all of the free speech champions are nailing Adria to the wall for someone else's actions. Free speech is good and well unless you don't agree with it or the reactions to it, right? Right-o.
http://www.muktware.com/4529/why-google-killing-open-document-formats
So? The problems with the Vega were not immediately apparent. OTOH the promise of the Vega was immediately apparent. Same with the Alliance (which also garnered awards from the French press and French auto buying public). The Merkur range, OTOH, suffered mostly from poor marketing. These car of the year awards aren't about who's built the longest lasting, most reliable car. They're about who's built the flashiest, most innovative car.
Japan's ANA says Dreamliner batteries replaced 10 times.
Batteries will fail, usually in some sort of spectacular manner. Their specific chemistry doesn't matter. In fact this is so well known, and the possibility of a fire was so well anticipated that Boeing did indeed design a containment cage for these batteries. Take a look at the pictures from the Boston incident. The heat damage was pretty well contained (the containment vessel was damaged quite significantly, but the rest of the nearby electronics remained intact). What *wasn't* contained, and what likely got the 787 grounded in the first place was the electrolyte solution. It's my understanding that unlike other types of batteries (lead acid, NiCd, NiMH) the big problem with the electrolyte solution in Li-Ion batteries isn't that it's corrosive. The problem is that the Li-Ion electrolyte solution is flammable.
That said, it's also my understanding that the batteries in both the Japanese 787s were fairly new (one was in a new plane, one had recently been replaced).
Of this type? Two. The APU and the main battery. They are identical and thus interchangeable such that if the main battery is not charged or otherwise not functioning before a flight, you can swap the APU battery in its place. There are, IIRC, other batteries scattered throughout the plane. Unsure if they're Li-Ion or not.
One of the planes was about a year old, the other a couple weeks. The older plane had seen its Li-Ion batteries replaced in more recent times, and the two suspect batteries were within 30 serial numbers of each other. If they're wearing out *that* quickly I'd be worried.
Except that Boeing ran into problems with the batteries before production. I've got exactly zero idea how accurate this piece is, but it's an interesting (if rambling) read:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/01/17/qantas-hopes-for-a-fast-dreamliner-fix-are-fading/?wpmp_switcher=mobile
The worrying part of the "thermal issues" is not how the battery containment box looks, it's that (according to some reports) electrolyte got splashed outside of the box.
Sure.
Alcatel/Thales wrote the train control software for the San Francisco Municipal Railway (SF had to sue Thales to get their shit working even half-way decently), the in-flight entertainment for some (all?) of Air Canada's planes the last time I flew them (the whole system had to be rebooted repeatedly), and they designed the chipsets for the early popular DSL modems. I can't say I've got fond memories of any of these products.
Boeing shares are up too (1.24%) as of 15:34 Eastern time.
How does this get modded up? The batteries are Japanese (Yuasa) in origin, sourced by a French company (Alcatel/Thales).
There have been a lot of lessons learned since SW111. The biggest lesson is, IMO, that of a quick response. One of the big problems with SW111 (and AC797) was that delays (a matter of seconds in the case of AC797) made the difference between life and death. The ANA pilot declared an emergency, got the plane on the ground, and got the passengers off ASAP.
It hasn't been clarified which battery was problematic in the most recent 787 incident. If it was the APU (the one that caught fire in Boston) or the main battery, Boeing designed for the "one of those batteries catches fire" case. Both are enclosed in a fire resistant enclosure, and both are designed so that smoke from such a fire is vented away from the cabin. That's a gigantic difference from SW111 and AC797 where the fires occurred in an area that was not designed to contain fire.
There are conflicting reports of smoke, and conflicting reports as to which battery was at fault in the latest instance... but barring smoke in the cabin, it likely wouldn't have ended up much worse (a couple of injuries from using the emergency slides).
Not necessarily. See also the Hostess bankruptcy.
Yeah, we use ZTE modems (embedded stuff) at work. It's a tossup between the support and the product as to which is actually worse. None of our vendors enjoy selling ZTE products. Our standard policy is to ship the modems from the vendor to ZTE to ensure proper configuration. We've had one batch that was provisioned for a Chinese telecom, so we ended up "roaming" on our carrier and were assigned IP addresses owned by a Chinese company. All of the ZTE documentation for this particular modem is for the latest version of the firmware (which is not backwards compatible with the previous version of the firmware). Well, despite sending all of these things back to ZTE, only a handful of the modems have the current, documented version of the firmware. Despite asking for documentation for the older version of the firmware, ZTE has refused to provide any. Their solution is to recall hundreds of modems, ship them to ZTE and hope for the best. The firmware is not user updatable.
No. Thanks.
I feel for any carrier that things hawking ZTE phones will be a reasonable experience.
Why? There are definitely instances where an optimization like that may be appropriate. It's not a wrong, bad, or particularly smart ass answer.
The value here, IMO, is the insight into the candidate's thought process. I certainly wouldn't have one correct solution in mind If they give up or can't come up with an answer, I'd move on pretty quickly. If someone gave an answer like you did, I'd probably see what it would take to steer them towards a more flexible answer.
I am aware that portversion (part of the portupgrade suite) is much faster. I was using it until portupgrade broke. I did just check and it appears as if portupgrade is suddenly working again. Definitely not predictable enough for me to want to keep using.
I am/was using portmaster because portupgrade is broken on my system (it chokes on the pciids package). Portmaster is fast(er), but is unbelievably verbose, and its default settings are frustrating. Portupgrade defaults to saving old libraries, saving the need to recompile EVERYTHING. Portmaster does not. Portupgrade will keep distfiles around. Portmaster will sporadically prompt you to delete all of the associated distfiles. Portupgrade will show you the progress of the files it's downloading. Portmaster will show you that it's blocked, waiting for something to download (it will keep spamming your console with this rather useless message until the file has finished downloading... given how unreliable some of the default mirrors are this can add quite a bit of time to installs/upgrades unless you're paying attention to bandwidth usage elsewhere).
Yes, I'm sure portng is going to be a step up. I'm sure that I could learn how to use portmaster. But in the end, the Debian tools are far, far more intuitive and expedient for me. Maybe it's time to test out Debian/FreeBSD.
The ports system is an absolute nightmare. Sure you've got things like portmaster and portupgrade (the latter is currently broken with no fix in sight). I spend far more time mangling ports than I do dealing with package management on any Debian based system. It took over forty seconds(!!) on an otherwise idle system (Ivy Bridge i5 w/ SSD) to list all the installed ports and their versions (pkg_version). Using the ports system is akin to pulling teeth as far as I can tell.
The problems with X, for me, have mainly been lack of driver support (Ivy Bridge support is pants). But that's a whole 'nother ball of wax.
Yeah, well, having to go out of your way to disable stuff is great motivation to move to another distro that actually respects its users.
Agreed. I've been using FreeBSD off and on since 2.2.2. Despite some really eye watering bugs with Ubuntu (especially their ec2 instances), FreeBSD is just more tedious and more frustrating to use. But... FreeBSD has the one killer feature for me: ZFS. It's portable in a pinch and ensure a decent amount of data integrity. Hammer, BTRFS, etc don't offer that kind of flexibility.
For the upgrade from 7.x to 8.x I used "freebsd-update". I forgot to disable the cron task, so after falling asleep the machine proceeded to lunch itself. Fine. User error. Again I tried "freebsd-update" to apply security patches. Guess what? "freebsd-update" doesn't handle new files gracefully, and again it lunched itself. Sure, there was an easy fix (download the single missing file that threw a wrench into the works), but the maintainer of "freebsd-update" knew of the problem and, as far as I can tell, just ignored it. Too much manual intervention is required to keep a FreeBSD system running compared to Linux.
I decided to tempt fate again with the upgrade from 8.x to 9.x (to see if the much promised support for Intel graphics chips was usable -- lesson learned, despite being in the release notes it's pre-alpha at best). Well, this time "freebsd-update" didn't mess anything up, the new kernel did. Turns out what FreeBSD 9.x and FreeBSD < 9.x consider BSD disk labels are two very separate things. My ZFS pools vanished. All sorts of fun ensued (there's that pesky data integrity thing). While FreeBSD 8.x would recognize the pool, 9.1 both missed and corrupted the ZFS magic bits. UGH.
Then there's the ports system. A clusterfuck if I've ever seen one. I've been using 'portupgrade' to ease some of the pain. And it works. Until it doesn't. It's definitely not particularly compatible with ruby 1.9. It's utterly confused by the versioning on the ruby 1.9 port. Upgrading (as of this week) to the latest version of the "pciids" port breaks "portupgrade" with no clean way to back these things out. When mucking about with all the updated XOrg stuff (see above about trying to get Intel graphics to work) I discovered that if you're not using "portupgrade" it's super easy to install duplicate, conflicting versions of a package with no clean way of backing this out. Compare this to Debian based distros where dpkg -i will neatly handle upgrades without lunching your system. While compiling is something of a pain, there are out of date binary packages that are sorta available. The real pain is just that the ports toolchain sucks rocks.
Oh, and watching trivial bugs languish for years got frustrating too. Ah well.
The reason that Apple gets singled out is because they go to such lengths to make sure you see the "Designed by Apple in California" every time you open one of their products, to trigger the "rah rah USA company!" emotional response. If they didn't go to such lengths to intentionally manipulate people, and also if they didn't position themselves as a premium brand when, in fact, their shit is made out of the same components and made in the same facilities as everybody else's shit, they might have a justifiable argument against being singled out.
This is potentially a step in the right direction, at least. Nowhere near enough to take them out of the "do not recommend, do not buy" category though.
--Jeremy
You're kidding, right?
HP Touchpad:
"Designed in USA. Made in China."
So why aren't you singling out HP?
When the browser asks you if you want to use one of these features, just click No. No one is forcing you to use a Facebook siderbar.
Meanwhile, the Mozilla folks have been dodging HTML4 and CSS3 for over twelve years. You tell me, what sounds like a better use of time: bloating the browser with some bullshit Facebook-specific plugin or allowing for decimal aligned numbers in tables?
Sadly, Firefox becomes less and less relevant as they try the most hamfisted ways to maintain relevance.