At what point did OP say, "you're only allowed to be sad if you contributed"?
OP pointed out that many people stated they were sad. OP also pointed out it's likely few of those who were sad also contributed money. For a project whose maintainer said, essentially, "I can't keep doing this for free," the connection for most is obvious: "we (individuals and corporations) need to keep paying for the things we use and love if we want to keep the things we use and love."
OP did not say, "don't complain to me if you didn't personally try to save it."
Something burning down is a tragedy, beyond anyone's control. It's also possible to love something for its beauty, and be sad that a globally historic monument suffered such an act of god that the irreplaceable art and craftsmanship is gone forever.
Something closing down, perhaps because there was not enough money to sustain its continued operation, when tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people were using it? That's a perfectly appropriate time to remind folks, "if you like free software, consider donating to help sustain the almost full-time effort it takes to keep packages like this alive."
Op said, "this is sad [because] I've been using this," and the implication is, "I want to keep using this but now I can't because it's gone" and making the connection that "one way to prevent this from happening to other packages you like is to contribute financially."
Tcl/Tk was used by the first open source project I ever contributed to 25 years ago – a client for AOL Instant Messenger called TiK. It was such a thrill to be able to hack on the client, see the changes in almost real time, and share with others. It's great to see Tcl still around and kicking!
A will was rediscovered that was written by Shakespeare's granddaughter's husband, who never owned the home, stating that his cousin should get the house.
The husband died first, the granddaughter (who actually owned the house) remarried, and the cousin never got the house. The granddaughter later died, and the home was demolished shortly thereafter, almost 350 years ago, and at least 200 years before this legal document was last in the news.
> During its lifetime, Ratcliffe - commissioned in 1967 - has generated enough power to make more than a billion cups of tea every day.
The most British unit of energy measurement possible. What would the American version be? Hamburger patties cooked? Smartphones charged? Highway miles driven?
I found this[1] link from the EPA with a number similar to yours, 8.8kg per gallon of gas, but they say it "creates" rather than "emits." I'm still struggling with this creation of mass out of thin air...
I have had a 43" monitor at work and at home for a while, and the solution I've used throughout the pandemic has been to share only a region of the screen, or to share a single application or window, which I often shrink down to a "laptop" size" in order to share my screen with colleagues. That still leaves plenty of real estate around the "shared" window that is not visible to others, but is useful to me.
If you enjoyed reading this story, u/Admiral_Cloudberg has been writing these kinds of well-researched post-mortems on air collisions and accidents on Reddit[0] for several years, and has recently expanded to Medium[1]. The posts are always interesting, even for someone with no background in aviation, and often come with photographs, diagrams, or video.
The article mentions their increasing focus on Azure.
I'm amazed by the number of people we're talking about. If you follow the links in the article back a few years, it appears Microsoft has laid off close to 30-40,000 people in the last 4 years, less than half of which were from Nokia. But with a global workforce in the range of 120,000 people, I guess that's not completely out of proportion.
Presumably OP is referring to the walled garden of CompuServe, Prodigy, and others where you could only talk to other CompuServe customers on their proprietary message boards. If you wanted to talk with someone else, it was impossible (until later) because the systems didn't interoperate. CompuServe controlled the message boards, and could control which ones were created (or not created) and thus controlled the message. Not maliciously, just as the nature of their product and the state of technology at the time.
Food was by far our largest expense, but not because we choose the fancy fish and steak options. Instead we picked lots of food we wished we had been served at weddings we had been to. Tasty comfort foods, like a mashed potato bar (add your own toppings) and buffalo chicken sliders and lots of little tapas-style treats. We got so much positive feedback on the simple items, and continue to do so to this day. So glad we resisted the urge to serve uptight "fancy" selections!
They aren't using popular attachments. They are using customized attachments from the actual compromised sender. I commented elsewhere in the thread, but once they gain your credentials, they will go into your account to get one of your attachments, and then email a screenshot of that to your contacts, some of whom may have already seen that attachment.
Sysadmin at a school: we use GMail for our students and faculty, and we got hit by this hard right before the holiday break. Three employees and a handful of students all got hit by the attack within a two hour period. It's the most sophisticated attack I've seen. The attackers log in to your account immediately once they get the credentials, and they use one of your actual attachments, along with one of your actual subject lines, and send it to people in your contact list.
For example, they went into one student's account, pulled an attachment with an athletic team practice schedule, generated the screenshot, and then paired that with a subject line that was tangentially related, and emailed it to the other members of the athletic team.
They were using bit.ly to obscure the address (in Russia). We had to take our whole mail system down for a few hours while we cleaned it up.
The fact that the grandfather comment is the top-rated comment (as of this writing) in the thread to me suggests that a great number of people agree with him/her, which sort of contradicts your "argument from ignorance" point.
Just because thousands of HN readers are intelligent engineers, founders, scientists, marketers, etc. doesn't make them legal experts, or political experts.
You assume that "freedom to contract" means that both parties enter with equal knowledge and equal bargaining power. In an environment with high unemployment (like we were not to long ago) it could mean that employees would jump at any job they were offered, out of necessity, even if it came with a nasty non-compete.
Government regulators can look at an overall picture and see that, statistically, in great numbers, there are overarching problems with the non-competes, like their being used with employees who don't have trade secrets.
Don't you think that removing all the extensions, bookmark bars, and extraneous UI cruft will make this browser consume a lot less RAM? Seems logical to me.
OP pointed out that many people stated they were sad. OP also pointed out it's likely few of those who were sad also contributed money. For a project whose maintainer said, essentially, "I can't keep doing this for free," the connection for most is obvious: "we (individuals and corporations) need to keep paying for the things we use and love if we want to keep the things we use and love."
OP did not say, "don't complain to me if you didn't personally try to save it."