I think the idea is any s3 compatible api endpoint can be used. The code also clearly supports both backblaze, and more importantly, local blob storage
Buyback programs are at the then-current publicly traded rates. They aren't generally at some magical premium, or else the whole trading price of the stock would go up even more.
Most people selling their shares in a company do not know who is on the buying side, and that is generally the case here. This goes for retail and institutional investors. And the buy-back programs are done slowly to avoid slippage, which can make it even harder to track down in the moment.
Someone who wanted to sell was selling anyway. They don't profit any more than their gains (or losses) already covered. The people who get "value" are the ones who did NOT sell their shares, and their "value" is only realized down the road when they do eventually sell.
A stock buy-back increases the stock's value through scarcity. It does not actually "return cash" in any immediate sense. Any value increase is completely on paper. The holder of the stock is still taxed when they sell their shares.
This is the same concept as you owning a home and someone builds a nicer home next to you. Your home value just went up. But you don't have a cent of that money until you sell your home, and then you are taxed on the gains (unless you roll it into another home, but that's a separate discussion).
The Chicxulub crater off the top of the Yucatan peninsula is attributed for that particular event. It wasn't really known until the early/mid 90s I don't think.
Worth pointing out that postwoman is free and opensource. It is not quite as full-featured as postman, but for quick mocking without requiring registration, it is a great option.
https://postwoman.io/
The Texas power grid is isolated and cannot routinely import power. It can in very temporary and emergency situations, but they do not as a matter of course to avoid federal oversight.
So while the US Western grid can time shift one hour in the way you describe, Texas is isolated.
FWIW, I think the concern with "doesn't bother updating the passwords" was with respect to recovering from a hacked joomla install, not about an aging password management scheme.
I feel like this point should be much higher than it is, and should be highlighted more clearly in the article. And the article doesn't even make it clear if this is a 5/1 or a 5/5, but it also absolutely leaves out the point that the rate won't just change after the initial 5 year period.
Non-conforming and no-doc loans weren't the only problem in the 2007s. ARMs were a big issue too because everyone thought they could refi before the initial period was up and that ended up not being true.
Re friends opting out, no, you would just need the system to exclude individuals who have the opt-out attribute from the graph search. But I do also have timeline review turned on and have for years.
I get that I am probably a minority user of Facebook, in that I have very customized security and privacy settings. To me, there has always been value in choosing with whom to share certain information. It isn't a global binary function.
To the best of my understanding, you can opt out of personalized ads with google, but not all ads. At least for the search product.
For email, one can pay for their google apps tier, which doesn't have ads, but it is obviously targeted to business users, so the value prop is completely different anyway.
So wait... In the US, my "value" to facebook is about $100 a year? (~24/q rounded up)
Can I subscribe to facebook and opt out of all advertising and any data sharing exposure with third-parties? That is totally worth $8-10/mo to me.
Edit: I get it. You don't like this idea, or you don't think it will work, or you don't think facebook's investors will like it (full disclosure: I am one). Why on earth should that stop me from putting my obviously flawed opinion out there that I am sick of being the product and I'd love to opt out of that process?
To some degree, you may be correct, that there will be companies that refuse to upgrade for many years. By and large, I think most people will start to switch:
* Small orgs will begin to see costs of maintaining legacy code skyrocket as it becomes harder and harder to get 2.7 interpreter support for newer kernels. Those that aren't already transitioning now will eventually bite the bullet.
* Medium orgs will probably be the laggards. They have enough funds to pay someone else to make compatible interpreters for them. Your observation about manager authorization very likely applies here so many probably won't bother to upgrade without an internal skunkworks-style initiative.
* Large orgs will upgrade. Their infosec departments will freak out that an old, "potentially insecure" language is being used, regardless of third party vendor support. I see this a fair bit now in the PHP space; where RHEL supports and backports patches for old, insecure versions of PHP, but the infosec people still can't stand it. These days, infosec is getting more and more pull in every huge organization, so it wouldn't surprise me at all to see them start to treat 2.7—or the old, un-updated packages that are locking someone to 2.7—as a possible attack vector and force a change.
All that said, you are right about jobs. If someone knows 2.7 inside and out, they will start to see higher and higher paying contract gigs over the next 15-20 years. Just like the COBOL programmers saw.