I know this is blatantly off topic and I'm just feeding a troll but I've been hooked and can't let go.
USB is a serial bus (2 pins for supply + 2 pins for serial signal), but USB-C isn't because is a parallel bus.
The Universal Serial Bus is a parallel bus?
USB-C is a new plug which can implement the USB3 protocol.
The USB3 protocol uses two sets of differential pairs for high speed communication. This is a serial bus and the same setup as many other systems including Serial ATA.
For backwards compatibility USB3 plugs contain wiring for both the serial USB2 signal and the serial USB3 signal, typically referred to as a dual signal. A typical device enumerates on one of the two busses, hubs enumerate on both to form two hubs one of which handles downstream USB3, the other downstream USB1/2.
However multiple serial busses does not make it a parallel bus, especially because the two signal sets run independently are clocked at different rates.
You need legislation to prevent that kind of liability, and it will save many, many lives. It just won't save everyone.
No you don't. You just need insurance and actuaries to calculate and charge for the risks--which is exactly how we handle car accident deaths already.
The difference is that if one person kills somebody in a car crash, we use phrases like accident, treat each incident individually and insurance is based around actual damages.
When one programming mistake or design decision kills 50 people we use phrases like tragedy, negligence, blame, the previously diffused anger is focused on a single company, possibly a single individual. Insurance starts including punitive damages, companies are targeted rather than individuals which historically leads to massive awards.
Believing that people will see past their personal tragedy and accept that statistical risk has improved is naive, thinking that a jury won't get absorbed by the same narrative is financially reckless.
You are right, I simplified and missed a few elements because I got spoilt and typically worked with ideal conditions.
GPS accuracy is impacted by the position of the satellites, if they are all in the same spot you get a shit fix. For a good altitude fix you need some satellites down near the horizon, in a dense urban area (urban canyon) you can't get this and performance will drop substantially.
Altitude is a tricky beast, as nobody can really agree on what the zero value is. Different models are used by different people, if your altitude model doesn't match you will see consistent errors, 30m is a typical value.
Finally one trick that they can use in low signal conditions (3 sats) is to assume an altitude of zero. By eliminating a variable you can solve the position equations with one fewer signal. This is rare in practice, in reasonable conditions a receiver should see 8-10 satellites and will probably fix using six of them.
The US government accuracy issues were removed ages ago, partly because the military was trying to use civilian devices and the imposed inaccuracies were hurting them more than the enemy, and partly because it is easy to compensate the imposed error by measuring it with a fixed receiver at a known location.
Current generation mass market GPS receivers use a single frequency band, L1. The current errors are mostly a combination of atmospheric error, the signal is delayed differing amounts in the ionosphere depending on the weather, and errors in the local crystal oscillator of the receiver.
The GPS satellites have long transmitted multiple signals at different frequencies, L2 is encoded to reserve it for military use. Using two frequencies allows the ionospheric error to be mostly removed as the two frequencies are impacted differently. I understand it has been possible for a while to break the military signal with enough data but in practice that isn't necessary, the shape of the encoded signal can be used to provide enough information to correct for the ionosphere.
Satellites launched from 2010 have also transmitted a signal on L5, like L2 it is another frequency with all the same benefits but without the military encoding.
In the past most budget GPS systems have only supported L1 because each frequency requires an independent front end and that is a significant element of the cost. Even survey receivers typically used only L1 and averaged the signal over time to increase the accuracy. The new Broadcom chip has a front end for L1 and L5, in addition to all the other frequencies a mobile phone can receive, allowing the ionospheric errors to be corrected for.
The errors in the crystal oscillator will continue to be a significant problem, 1ns is pushing the envelope for a non-ovenised crystal, and an ovenised crystal isn't really an option for a cost sensitive mobile device.
The error window is best considered as a time error window, the signal is +- 10ns. 10ns = 3m (speed of light), a common strong signal resolution. This is +- 3m in any direction, the conversion to lat/long/altitude is done very late is the GPS maths process.
What happened to the jobs at the retailers that are replaced by Amazon supply chain (ie, working in the bricks and mortar)..
What happens to the workers at Amazon who get displaced by robots after their work force is saturated? When they are not experiencing growth?
Half of them run around breaking windows.
The other half get jobs fixing broken windows.
The second group subsidises the first.
Seriously this kind of useless labour is a cost to society, it can and will be invested where it delivers a greater good.
Putting a human face on it, people get more meaningful careers where they aren't a replaceable piece of labour doing a job so intellectually unchallenging that a basic robotic arm could replace them.
From the referenced page "All SoCs productized in 2017 must launch with kernel 4.4 or newer."
So it is only somewhat old, with a transition period to reduce the pain on their downstream.
More important is the signal that it sends to the manufacturers that they need to be using a recent kernel, not the dusty 2.6 they have on the shelf. A manufacturer designing a product now for launch in 2018/19 will be penciling in something much more recent, like the future 4.15 release, to ensure that they don't get caught out as Google steps the requirements.
Uncountable numbers of crashes have been AVERTED by the pilots overriding automation. Uncountable because most are never reported to anyone, ever.
Of course they are reported, every near miss in the first world airline industry is reported.
When airline people talk about safety they do so with a huge amount of data backing them up, you can't just hand wave it away because it disagrees with you personal narrative.
So yes, they should be criticized, but they should be criticized for the ridiculously short certificate expiration times that result in them issuing so many certificates each day, not for the number of certificates per se. That silly policy decision inherently limits the amount of verification that they can do, so even if they wanted to do more, they can't.
Or possibly they know something that you don't.
The certificate revocation system is broken, doesn't work. CRLs didn't work for anything but the big sites and have been depreciated. OCSP doesn't work against man in the middle attacks, which is the primary attack vector.
What does work is the expiration date, once a certificate has expired it is safe. So you can improve things significantly by having a short certificate life span, shorter the better. To make this manageable you need to automate the acquisition, essentially build the letsencrypt system. 90 days is a compromise, they have been open about the fact once the automation is smoother that time frame will drop significantly.
Programs which hide (delete) menu entries based on state.
I once spent two days trying to figure out how to recover a low quality software raid disk because the recover menu entry had been deleted and the documentation was useless. The menu entry to start the recovery wasn't visible until the spare disk had been precisely configured as the software wanted. Of course with no feedback of that being the case I was left searching through the interface and floundering around until I managed to luck into the solution.
All over the world timber is sold using the undressed dimensions,
Not true.
When I buy a board in Australia that advertises to be 10mm thick it is 10mm thick.
That is planed, made into a slotted floor board or rough. The only dimension that is ever wrong is the length, often a 2m board will be 2.2m, it is never less that advertised.
The logic of the court case isn't specific to the GPL, any licence you choose to distribute source with, or even a straight binary distribution would probably involve the creation of an implicit contract.
You shouldn't be scared of contracts, they are just a way for lawyers to formalise agreements. Buying a coffee - a contract. Buying a bus ticket - a contract. Agreeing to terms and conditions you never bothered to read - a contract.
Often you will see GPL projects that "allow" a corporate license.
The unwritten detail that you aren't seeing is that a GPL project that dual licences is almost exclusively developed by one company. It isn't a collaboration, because contributors provide their code under the GPL and that can't be included in the commercial product. This means that the GPL code is a gift by the company to the wider world with conditions which allow the company to continue to profit, they typically don't request significant contributions such as donations. The difference with a purely closed source company like Microsoft is that you, as the consumer, have a choice you otherwise wouldn't. For example you can use the GPL version for early development work and switch to the commercial license when you are sure you want to use the library and distribute a final product. The library development process closely mimics a standard closed source company.
Collaborative GPL products work very differently and are never dual licensed. The GPL provides a guarantee for each company contributing that every other company must also contribute. This allows direct competitors to cooperate on a product knowing that they aren't putting themselves at a disadvantage. These projects work very differently to the dual licensed ones, the development process is open to allow communication across multiple companies. They also take code contributions and sometimes financial contributions, often to maintain infrastructure.
I regularly have my company donate to many open source projects. These donations are pretty good (1-5k each) but we all fully agree that never in a million years would we donate to a GPL project or any over arching project ever.
Companies I have worked for have supported projects vital to our work. The license influences libraries we use and the way way we use them. If you are adamantly opposed to the GPL and don't rely on their work then it would make perfect sense not to direct your money or time there.
Not supporting a collaborative GPL project because of a few non-collaborative GPL projects just shows off your ignorance.
You are thinking from your experience of flying a bug smasher.
The airport is clearly designed for larger planes and would be managed by a tower. Most of your issues are solved by simply doing as the tower instructs.
It would actually be improved compared to a standard parallel multi-runway design. The turbulence from a geographically separated 60 degree off angle runway would be considerably less than a parallel runway.
Landing on a runway with a curve is certainly doable, I've known pilots to land on all sorts of odd surfaces. Many of the issues about traction etc. can be trivially solved by making the circle a bit bigger.
The excitement of managing the airspace is touched upon in the Business Insider article but not really fleshed out and I believe handling it in practice would diminish many of the suggested benefits.
The standard single runway is currently managed with a basic queue (simplified version). The planes circle in large loop around the airport. The airspace controller lines them up on a fixed marker above the end of the runway and they are passed on to the control tower for the landing. Take off is the same in reverse, they lift off, fly to a fixed marker and are then handed from the tower to the airspace controller.
Running a circular runway with three approaches would be doable, you would have three fixed approach markers, the same process would be used. Issues like turbulence from adjacent planes would need to be managed but this is standard in a multi-runway airport and would actually be greatly improved compared to two parallel approaches.
Once you start rotating the approaches with the wind things start getting far more exciting. Dynamic marker points aren't going to work, too much communication required and futzing around to communicate the approach point to every plane. So you are going to have to have multiple fixed sets, keeping it simple with only 3 options, 3 approach markers, 3 departure markers you have a total of 27 waypoints in a tight area around the airport. The odds of a plane flying to the wrong waypoint is huge (multiply it out by the number of flights a day, the number of passengers in a plane etc) and the consequences catastrophic, without extensive changes to the way planes are managed the risks are just far too high.
He may well be a troll. Entirely possible. But the videos I've thus far seen were not of a trollish cast, and the "Death to All Jews" one in particular is not remotely anti-semitic. [trimmed ad hominem attack]
I didn't say he was anti-semitic, I don't believe that he is. I said that he is an attention whore. The entire reason he asked for THAT phrase to be written was to get a reaction.
If he was truly horrified by what he and they did, as he claimed in the video, he could have solved the problem by simply not posting the video. Instead he posted it and got waves of free publicity.
This is part of a campaign:
3 Dec 2016 - Announces he is going to quit (spoiler, he doesn't)
10 Dec 2016 - Tries to get a video with a huge amount of likes
26 Dec 2016 - Tries to get a video with a huge amount of dislikes
6 Jan 2017 - Uses the word n*gger (lameness filtered) absent of any context
11 Jan 2017 - Uploads the Fiverr sign with "death to all jews"
28 Jan 2017 - Tries to get a video with a huge amount of comments
I am disgusted by this article, almost as disgusted as I am at myself taking the time to respond to it.
PewDiePie is a professional attention whore and it is fascinating to watch him ply his craft. This latest response is perfectly timed, just as the flames were dying down he fans them and gets another round of attention.
He is a troll and like any troll the way to defeat it is by ignoring it.
Some conferences are great for sharing ideas, meeting people in the field and learning some really awesome stuff. Most of these make recordings of the talks available but being there and being able to chat to a speaker over breakfast or a talking with someone over a beer who is tackling the same problems you are can be invaluable. You learn about new techniques, new approaches, the latest trick from field Y which may be applicable to your field X and just have a really good time.
Some conferences are shit money grabs which operate as scams and should be avoided. As a hint, look at the reputation for the conference and who is paying. If companies can buy ('sponsor') speaker slots then you are going to be subjected to sales pitches.
A good employer wants a happy employee that grows within the company, expanding their skills and adding more value over time. They can't be too concerned that you will get poached, if you are not happy you are going to leave anyway. Sending you to a conference is a way of investing in you, increasing your skill level and making you a more valuable employee.
People around here hate C# (those that do) because it's from MS. When it comes to MS, there are no technical merits that can redeem the technology. They are not rational people. Most of them probably don't even program for a living.
As a former Visual Basic programmer I will not base my livelihood on a MS programming language. Who knows when MS announces the next shiny programming language, declares my companies existing code base obsolete and expects everyone to repeat the same mistake.
All binary & lib dirs linked in/usr ?
That's incredibly STUPID
Don't they know why/usr existed in the 1st place ?
Story time: [...]
Of course they know why/usr existed in the first place, the article references two discussions about the merits and downsides of such a move. To me the critical argument is that the original use case you cited of late mounting/usr to a networked filesystem is already broken, mostly by udev, and fixing it is not realistic or worthwhile.
As for shifting everything to root, I agree reflexively but there are advantages to having/usr, high on the list is the fact that people expect it and that it is the approach that Fedora takes. A move like that would impose considerable work on the entire ecosystem without any clear benefit.
The Bottom Line though is this is a change to the default. Debian does and will continue in the future to support both arrangements. So long as people see advantages in having a separated/bin and/usr/bin and configure their systems that way they will continue to exist as a configurable option.
Slashdot Mirror
I know this is blatantly off topic and I'm just feeding a troll but I've been hooked and can't let go.
USB is a serial bus (2 pins for supply + 2 pins for serial signal), but USB-C isn't because is a parallel bus.
The Universal Serial Bus is a parallel bus?
USB-C is a new plug which can implement the USB3 protocol.
The USB3 protocol uses two sets of differential pairs for high speed communication. This is a serial bus and the same setup as many other systems including Serial ATA.
For backwards compatibility USB3 plugs contain wiring for both the serial USB2 signal and the serial USB3 signal, typically referred to as a dual signal. A typical device enumerates on one of the two busses, hubs enumerate on both to form two hubs one of which handles downstream USB3, the other downstream USB1/2.
However multiple serial busses does not make it a parallel bus, especially because the two signal sets run independently are clocked at different rates.
You need legislation to prevent that kind of liability, and it will save many, many lives. It just won't save everyone.
No you don't. You just need insurance and actuaries to calculate and charge for the risks--which is exactly how we handle car accident deaths already.
The difference is that if one person kills somebody in a car crash, we use phrases like accident, treat each incident individually and insurance is based around actual damages.
When one programming mistake or design decision kills 50 people we use phrases like tragedy, negligence, blame, the previously diffused anger is focused on a single company, possibly a single individual. Insurance starts including punitive damages, companies are targeted rather than individuals which historically leads to massive awards.
Believing that people will see past their personal tragedy and accept that statistical risk has improved is naive, thinking that a jury won't get absorbed by the same narrative is financially reckless.
You are right, I simplified and missed a few elements because I got spoilt and typically worked with ideal conditions.
GPS accuracy is impacted by the position of the satellites, if they are all in the same spot you get a shit fix. For a good altitude fix you need some satellites down near the horizon, in a dense urban area (urban canyon) you can't get this and performance will drop substantially.
Altitude is a tricky beast, as nobody can really agree on what the zero value is. Different models are used by different people, if your altitude model doesn't match you will see consistent errors, 30m is a typical value.
Finally one trick that they can use in low signal conditions (3 sats) is to assume an altitude of zero. By eliminating a variable you can solve the position equations with one fewer signal. This is rare in practice, in reasonable conditions a receiver should see 8-10 satellites and will probably fix using six of them.
The US government accuracy issues were removed ages ago, partly because the military was trying to use civilian devices and the imposed inaccuracies were hurting them more than the enemy, and partly because it is easy to compensate the imposed error by measuring it with a fixed receiver at a known location.
Current generation mass market GPS receivers use a single frequency band, L1. The current errors are mostly a combination of atmospheric error, the signal is delayed differing amounts in the ionosphere depending on the weather, and errors in the local crystal oscillator of the receiver.
The GPS satellites have long transmitted multiple signals at different frequencies, L2 is encoded to reserve it for military use. Using two frequencies allows the ionospheric error to be mostly removed as the two frequencies are impacted differently. I understand it has been possible for a while to break the military signal with enough data but in practice that isn't necessary, the shape of the encoded signal can be used to provide enough information to correct for the ionosphere.
Satellites launched from 2010 have also transmitted a signal on L5, like L2 it is another frequency with all the same benefits but without the military encoding.
In the past most budget GPS systems have only supported L1 because each frequency requires an independent front end and that is a significant element of the cost. Even survey receivers typically used only L1 and averaged the signal over time to increase the accuracy. The new Broadcom chip has a front end for L1 and L5, in addition to all the other frequencies a mobile phone can receive, allowing the ionospheric errors to be corrected for.
The errors in the crystal oscillator will continue to be a significant problem, 1ns is pushing the envelope for a non-ovenised crystal, and an ovenised crystal isn't really an option for a cost sensitive mobile device.
Altitude resolution is the same.
The error window is best considered as a time error window, the signal is +- 10ns. 10ns = 3m (speed of light), a common strong signal resolution. This is +- 3m in any direction, the conversion to lat/long/altitude is done very late is the GPS maths process.
What happened to the jobs at the retailers that are replaced by Amazon supply chain (ie, working in the bricks and mortar).. What happens to the workers at Amazon who get displaced by robots after their work force is saturated? When they are not experiencing growth?
Half of them run around breaking windows.
The other half get jobs fixing broken windows.
The second group subsidises the first.
Seriously this kind of useless labour is a cost to society, it can and will be invested where it delivers a greater good.
Putting a human face on it, people get more meaningful careers where they aren't a replaceable piece of labour doing a job so intellectually unchallenging that a basic robotic arm could replace them.
From the referenced page "All SoCs productized in 2017 must launch with kernel 4.4 or newer."
So it is only somewhat old, with a transition period to reduce the pain on their downstream.
More important is the signal that it sends to the manufacturers that they need to be using a recent kernel, not the dusty 2.6 they have on the shelf. A manufacturer designing a product now for launch in 2018/19 will be penciling in something much more recent, like the future 4.15 release, to ensure that they don't get caught out as Google steps the requirements.
Uncountable numbers of crashes have been AVERTED by the pilots overriding automation. Uncountable because most are never reported to anyone, ever.
Of course they are reported, every near miss in the first world airline industry is reported.
When airline people talk about safety they do so with a huge amount of data backing them up, you can't just hand wave it away because it disagrees with you personal narrative.
About a year ago I was joking that they would reimplement ntp any day now. Then I discovered systemd-timesyncd.
So yes, they should be criticized, but they should be criticized for the ridiculously short certificate expiration times that result in them issuing so many certificates each day, not for the number of certificates per se. That silly policy decision inherently limits the amount of verification that they can do, so even if they wanted to do more, they can't.
Or possibly they know something that you don't.
The certificate revocation system is broken, doesn't work. CRLs didn't work for anything but the big sites and have been depreciated. OCSP doesn't work against man in the middle attacks, which is the primary attack vector.
What does work is the expiration date, once a certificate has expired it is safe. So you can improve things significantly by having a short certificate life span, shorter the better. To make this manageable you need to automate the acquisition, essentially build the letsencrypt system. 90 days is a compromise, they have been open about the fact once the automation is smoother that time frame will drop significantly.
Programs which hide (delete) menu entries based on state.
I once spent two days trying to figure out how to recover a low quality software raid disk because the recover menu entry had been deleted and the documentation was useless. The menu entry to start the recovery wasn't visible until the spare disk had been precisely configured as the software wanted. Of course with no feedback of that being the case I was left searching through the interface and floundering around until I managed to luck into the solution.
All over the world timber is sold using the undressed dimensions,
Not true. When I buy a board in Australia that advertises to be 10mm thick it is 10mm thick.
That is planed, made into a slotted floor board or rough. The only dimension that is ever wrong is the length, often a 2m board will be 2.2m, it is never less that advertised.
For what it is worth, which is nothing. Coding has never landed me a job no matter what I do.
The tech industry can suck the rancid shit out of my old bitter asshole. Fuck you all to hell, you fucking motherfuckers.
You should try writing decent code, and maybe working on your people skills.
It is nice of you to warn potential employers off though.
The logic of the court case isn't specific to the GPL, any licence you choose to distribute source with, or even a straight binary distribution would probably involve the creation of an implicit contract.
You shouldn't be scared of contracts, they are just a way for lawyers to formalise agreements. Buying a coffee - a contract. Buying a bus ticket - a contract. Agreeing to terms and conditions you never bothered to read - a contract.
Often you will see GPL projects that "allow" a corporate license.
The unwritten detail that you aren't seeing is that a GPL project that dual licences is almost exclusively developed by one company. It isn't a collaboration, because contributors provide their code under the GPL and that can't be included in the commercial product. This means that the GPL code is a gift by the company to the wider world with conditions which allow the company to continue to profit, they typically don't request significant contributions such as donations. The difference with a purely closed source company like Microsoft is that you, as the consumer, have a choice you otherwise wouldn't. For example you can use the GPL version for early development work and switch to the commercial license when you are sure you want to use the library and distribute a final product. The library development process closely mimics a standard closed source company.
Collaborative GPL products work very differently and are never dual licensed. The GPL provides a guarantee for each company contributing that every other company must also contribute. This allows direct competitors to cooperate on a product knowing that they aren't putting themselves at a disadvantage. These projects work very differently to the dual licensed ones, the development process is open to allow communication across multiple companies. They also take code contributions and sometimes financial contributions, often to maintain infrastructure.
I regularly have my company donate to many open source projects. These donations are pretty good (1-5k each) but we all fully agree that never in a million years would we donate to a GPL project or any over arching project ever.
Companies I have worked for have supported projects vital to our work. The license influences libraries we use and the way way we use them. If you are adamantly opposed to the GPL and don't rely on their work then it would make perfect sense not to direct your money or time there.
Not supporting a collaborative GPL project because of a few non-collaborative GPL projects just shows off your ignorance.
Lawyers call an agreement a contract.
The court has just affirmed what you said, Hancom publicly stated that they had agreed to the GPL. Thus there is a contract in place.
The contract has terms, defined by the GPL that Hancom agreed to. These terms were not complied with. Now we have a breach of contract.
Once a breach of contract has been established the case becomes much clearer, lots of existing case law which covers how it should be dealt with.
XSLT, dear god.
Does your workplace include nets on the stairs?
You are thinking from your experience of flying a bug smasher.
The airport is clearly designed for larger planes and would be managed by a tower.
Most of your issues are solved by simply doing as the tower instructs.
It would actually be improved compared to a standard parallel multi-runway design.
The turbulence from a geographically separated 60 degree off angle runway would be considerably less than a parallel runway.
Landing on a runway with a curve is certainly doable, I've known pilots to land on all sorts of odd surfaces. Many of the issues about traction etc. can be trivially solved by making the circle a bit bigger.
The excitement of managing the airspace is touched upon in the Business Insider article but not really fleshed out and I believe handling it in practice would diminish many of the suggested benefits.
The standard single runway is currently managed with a basic queue (simplified version). The planes circle in large loop around the airport. The airspace controller lines them up on a fixed marker above the end of the runway and they are passed on to the control tower for the landing. Take off is the same in reverse, they lift off, fly to a fixed marker and are then handed from the tower to the airspace controller.
Running a circular runway with three approaches would be doable, you would have three fixed approach markers, the same process would be used. Issues like turbulence from adjacent planes would need to be managed but this is standard in a multi-runway airport and would actually be greatly improved compared to two parallel approaches.
Once you start rotating the approaches with the wind things start getting far more exciting. Dynamic marker points aren't going to work, too much communication required and futzing around to communicate the approach point to every plane. So you are going to have to have multiple fixed sets, keeping it simple with only 3 options, 3 approach markers, 3 departure markers you have a total of 27 waypoints in a tight area around the airport. The odds of a plane flying to the wrong waypoint is huge (multiply it out by the number of flights a day, the number of passengers in a plane etc) and the consequences catastrophic, without extensive changes to the way planes are managed the risks are just far too high.
He may well be a troll. Entirely possible. But the videos I've thus far seen were not of a trollish cast, and the "Death to All Jews" one in particular is not remotely anti-semitic. [trimmed ad hominem attack]
I didn't say he was anti-semitic, I don't believe that he is. I said that he is an attention whore. The entire reason he asked for THAT phrase to be written was to get a reaction.
If he was truly horrified by what he and they did, as he claimed in the video, he could have solved the problem by simply not posting the video. Instead he posted it and got waves of free publicity.
This is part of a campaign:
I am disgusted by this article, almost as disgusted as I am at myself taking the time to respond to it.
PewDiePie is a professional attention whore and it is fascinating to watch him ply his craft. This latest response is perfectly timed, just as the flames were dying down he fans them and gets another round of attention.
He is a troll and like any troll the way to defeat it is by ignoring it.
Some conferences are great for sharing ideas, meeting people in the field and learning some really awesome stuff. Most of these make recordings of the talks available but being there and being able to chat to a speaker over breakfast or a talking with someone over a beer who is tackling the same problems you are can be invaluable. You learn about new techniques, new approaches, the latest trick from field Y which may be applicable to your field X and just have a really good time.
Some conferences are shit money grabs which operate as scams and should be avoided. As a hint, look at the reputation for the conference and who is paying. If companies can buy ('sponsor') speaker slots then you are going to be subjected to sales pitches.
A good employer wants a happy employee that grows within the company, expanding their skills and adding more value over time. They can't be too concerned that you will get poached, if you are not happy you are going to leave anyway. Sending you to a conference is a way of investing in you, increasing your skill level and making you a more valuable employee.
People around here hate C# (those that do) because it's from MS. When it comes to MS, there are no technical merits that can redeem the technology. They are not rational people. Most of them probably don't even program for a living.
As a former Visual Basic programmer I will not base my livelihood on a MS programming language. Who knows when MS announces the next shiny programming language, declares my companies existing code base obsolete and expects everyone to repeat the same mistake.
I do not view this as irrational in the least.
All binary & lib dirs linked in /usr ?
That's incredibly STUPID
Don't they know why /usr existed in the 1st place ?
Story time: [...]
Of course they know why /usr existed in the first place, the article references two discussions about the merits and downsides of such a move. To me the critical argument is that the original use case you cited of late mounting /usr to a networked filesystem is already broken, mostly by udev, and fixing it is not realistic or worthwhile.
As for shifting everything to root, I agree reflexively but there are advantages to having /usr, high on the list is the fact that people expect it and that it is the approach that Fedora takes. A move like that would impose considerable work on the entire ecosystem without any clear benefit.
The Bottom Line though is this is a change to the default. Debian does and will continue in the future to support both arrangements. So long as people see advantages in having a separated /bin and /usr/bin and configure their systems that way they will continue to exist as a configurable option.