Well, that's just a bunch of bullshit. Your everyday IT user (including me who has worked in the business for a LONG time) doesn't see that difference. No one cares if it's semantically correct when most people think it means something completely different.
My take: As long as they're not crystal clear with what they mean by that, I don't trust them. And to be honest, even then I probably wouldn't trust them with some confidential data. The very first step would be to open up about each point OP mentioned in his post, and we can go from there.
Due to the COVID-19 situation many teachers, students and workers are facing a sudden need to work completely from home. This might prove to be a huge challenge for teachers who're not very technically adept and small businesses who don't have the budget to invest in collaboration tools or don't know enough about what's available and/or needed.
Many companies building these collaboration tools, distance learning services etc. are stepping up and offering their premium services for free to those affected by the situation. I wanted to do my part in helping aggregate this information into one repository.
If you know of more already free or exceptionally free services that would suit the list or great articles that would help people in the transition to fully remote work/studies/teaching, feel free to contribute!
I chose to publish this in the public domain with the CC0 1.0 Universal license so you can do pretty much anything you wish with the list that's already there!
Thank you for reading and I hope that you're safe, wherever you are.
Loving the retro look of the controller! I find it a bit confusing that you have letters R, G, and B on the controller but you're modifying the Hue, Saturation, and Brightness values on the editor. Just a small nitpick.
OP could've spent 5 minutes to write a bit of a description of what this is, as not everyone has Telegram installed or wants to run some random guy's code to figure out what they're dealing with.
Looks cool and all, I was actually pretty sold the moment you started to talk about the editor. However, I still don't know what your editor actually does.
You ended the article abruptly and maybe expect people to click the link and go to your website to learn more? A bit more introduction is needed for your call-to-action to work. You can't just say "I made an editor" without at least listing the key features.
Wow, they really made it complex, didn't they? On one hand they advertise how anyone can spin up a VM and connect to it but you still need to do some serverless black magic to keep your budget in check. Anyway, thanks for the heads up. I'll definitely try that out.
Yes, you can set up a budget but it's only used for alerting. The services will happily keep running and building up to that 1k bill if you miss the alerts or don't react to them.
I'm a big advocate of open source but if a nuclear reactor based on an open-source project would be opened close to me, I'd pack up and move as far as I could.
When you're that high, the individual waves and currents are simply not that visible. What you see on the video IS how it actually looks in real life.
As always, whenever you find yourself saying something along the lines "I'm surprised they haven't thought of it...", the odds are they actually have thought about it and that you're wrong. After all, it would be comical for Microsoft to spend so much on dynamic, volumetric clouds and then just throw in the "fluid simulation engine" a.k.a. static textures from Flight Simulator 98.
As you already mentioned, there are many pitfalls. I think the biggest one is that the journalism source protection would not work if sources have to be public and all the information available to regulators on demand.
Just playing a devil's advocate here. The way archivists are downloading the data can be said to disrupt the services, which is mentioned in the terms of service:
2. d. viii: "interfere with or disrupt the Services or servers, systems or networks connected to the Services in any way."
I'd also like to point out that the apparent spokesperson Brenda Fowler said in her open letter to Verizon, that "If the problem is that all our attempts to rescue our archives in the time we have left is causing an overload or strain on your servers, then stop making us HAVE to work around the clock, and GIVE US MORE TIME. ..." Probably not the wisest thing to say right now.
Also, archiving the groups with automated tools is against the Use of Services rule, that states the following:
2. e: "Use of Services. You must follow any guidelines or policies associated with the Services. You must not misuse or interfere with the Services or try to access them using a method other than the interface and the instructions that we provide. ..."
As I mentioned in another comment, I really support the cause and am a big fan of archiving myself but it's unfortunately quite clear that Verizon is right at calling out the violations of "terms of service".
I'm wholeheartedly supporting the archival effort but was wondering exactly the same thing about the person communicating with Verizone. Her argumentation comes off as quite immature, and she's not making much sense with all that rambling.
Saying stuff such as this sounds pretentious and will unfortunately only get laughed at by anyone in the corporate world: "So the best thing Verizon could do, since they are just going to throw us all into the trash anyway, as we aren’t important to them, is let us get our archives any way we can.
The terms of service really should not apply to people who have been told, we’re gonna delete you from existence. If it’s lawful for us to get them from you, in broken buggy and virus ridden state, it’s just as lawful for us to get them ourselves."
As it is right now, she's just not doing any favors to the archivist community out there. Perhaps someone with proper communication skills and better nerves should take up that role? This is not a time to play a martyr and throw a fit while expecting Verizon to meet you half-way.
Interesting idea but as others have already pointed out, it has a lot more than just programming languages in it. I understand that the description explicitly points it out but advertising it as a list of "computer languages"/"programming languages" is just plain wrong and misleading.
That website looks like an affiliate marketing cash grab site from the early 2000s. I know that I should probably do some proper research but it was so off-putting that I'm just going to give up right away and call it a waste of time and/or a scam.
My take: As long as they're not crystal clear with what they mean by that, I don't trust them. And to be honest, even then I probably wouldn't trust them with some confidential data. The very first step would be to open up about each point OP mentioned in his post, and we can go from there.