Smells like tortious interference to me... and likely some form of perjury. I'd probably stop talking to them now that service is restored and get in touch with legal representation.
Now that they're maintaining versions based on web technologies and are now just a cog in the VC Funded RapidAPI machine, are you concerned that makes the writing on the wall for the native Mac app?
As a fellow autistic in the industry, I've struggled with these same things as well. The world wants to tell us that it's entirely our responsibity to adapt to it, and there's probably some grains of truth there. But what I've learned from years of working on complicated systems is... nothing is so simple as it seems. I've read dozens of books about interpersonal relationships, taken classes, therapy, etc. and at the end of the day what I end up doing is a lot less than anyone would think is necessary.
1. If someone isn't listening, stop talking. Nobody is benefiting from that, and it's a waste of your time and energy. I get significantly better engagement with people when they can interact with me for information rather than getting an information dump. On rare occasions they ask me something that does have a long and complicated answer, I lead with that fact and ask if they want the full details or as brief of a summary as I can make (-vvv or -q).
2. Let people into your thought process. The way we associative thinkers work is completely different from what linear thinkers are doing. By walking them through your thought process (which is infuriatingly slow this way) they actually can vaguely follow why you're asking what you're asking. It also allows you to give early feedback. "There are lots of concerns that should be considered before re-writing any already working software..." Over time people will begin to understand _why_ they should ask you about certain things and they can be more understanding on what's going on under the covers.
3. I have expressed my concerns and don't believe this is the best strategy, however I will document these and will observe your orders. If it's something that keeps happening, I'm more likely to move jobs than I am to move mountains in an organizational structure. I also think it's worth at least being aware of the game, as someone who's had it played against them to significant detriment before.
4. Honestly, #1 and #2 solve this problem. It's not concincing to most NTs to recite information but allowing them to interact with you to discover the information themselves allows them to realize that you do understand the information at a deep level. We tend to recite things because a scripted response is a lot easier for us to provide, but it's not actually all that useful in the context of conveying information.
Yeah; IANAL but I've spent a lot of time writing contracts for a specific vertical that have been reviewed by several lawyers, and I always built my contracts in this same structure. There would be a MSA that governs the overall relationship -- sets a baseline for what things cost and what their conditions are, and then there would be various contracts that would include the MSA by reference for enhanced or fixed-rate services.
Everyone preferred this structure that I dealt with, because the total length of the contracts were dramatically shorter and the structure was much easier to read and comprehend.
When it comes to dnssec, the keys are handed down through the same layer of delegation that gives you your nameservers. This is out of Cloudflare's hands as well, you have bad data up through the registry and out to (your tld's) root nameservers. Just like changes to your NS record delegation don't take immediate effect, these keys don't take immediate effect either.
It's still pretty early days for DNSSEC, if you're going to use it it's worthwhile to know a lot about it. Just look at the several Slack outages caused by their attempts to implement it. Eventually the tooling will catch up, and registrars will all give you warnings about moving DNS and registration and the importance of syncing up your keys but we just aren't there yet.
Hello fellow Aspie technologist! The best advice I can give you is pretty simple...
Everyone has their quirks and challenges, and IT is ripe with a ton of undiagnosed Autistic people among tons of other mental health challenges. Unless your autism impacts your ability to function at a basic level, there's really no reason to disclose it at the application/interview stage. When you're being screened/interviewed be sure to be clear about the working environment you're looking for and try to be mindful over time of your capacity and be sure you're communicating about your workloads and statuses regularly.
I feel like 7+ interviews is selecting for desperation more than any specific skill or fit. That's still likely to yield decent short/mid-term hires, and if the promotion structure keeps those hires around might be a successful strategy (we will leave the candidate's experience out of value judgement entirely) but it will eliminate an entire class of hires who aren't willing to submit to that amount of free time, energy and expertise for the possibility of future opportunities.
UCEPROTECT-2 and 3 aren't blocklists, they're reputation lists. Anyone straight blocking off those lists has most likely misconfigured their filtering and should expect to be missing mails.
Use of Level 3 for blocking is recommended only if you are a HARDLINER and you want to cause service providers and carriers that have spammer / abusive clients to be quickly and effectively blocked and it does not matter to you if regular email is also occasionally rejected.
> https://www.uceprotect.net/en/index.php?m=3&s=5
This has been the subject of hot debate on one of the popular mailing list operator's lists, and the providers that find themselves in Level 2/3 reliably are working on strategies to deal with that but it becomes complicated to do anything that affects thousands of customers. You'll find the providers that aren't on these lists are the ones that have an equally strict policy for allowing outbound Port 25 from their customers and a severely punitive abuse desk.
IMO, I run a personal mail server and deliver directly and if my mail is rejected or lost then I use another mechanism to contact that person (usually telephone) and inform them of the failure. I also provide usable feedback to senders for why I may have chosen to reject their message. And when it really matters, I also have a relay I can use for troublesome transports.
Where does this suggestion that the US C-Band for 5G goes up to 4.2 GHz come from? Auction 107 stopped at 3.98GHz leaving 200MHz for buffer between C-Band 5G and existing C-Band satellite users that have been in the space since the 60's and the radio altimeters don't start until 4.4 GHz.
Is this conjecture or something you’ve tested or known to be tested? V6 devices are actually expected to be able to understand multiple route advertisements and I know for sure they do properly understand the mix of link-local, ULA and public prefixes.
What I've been told is both ISP's v6 prefix should be advertised with different priorities to the clients, which also yields the net bonus that applications that are stateless (UDP) or use MP-TCP can seamlessly fail over or adapt to network conditions without the intervention of another network device.
I don't have easy access to multiple V6-PD enabled providers to test this theory, and as someone with quite the neck beard I really don't know how I feel about ceeding this level of control to endpoints. But also, I'm not sure I hate it either.
Oh and don't forget link-local and a ula prefix for your local addressing requirements for pinters and whatnot that shouldn't be using dynamic discovery.