It’s worth noting that one of those organizations is IBM. Mostly relevant because they’re the ones that originally built a lot of that cobol, the mainframes it runs on, and even the compilers that compiled it.
They’re basically the people you would expect to be able to do it, and they pretty quickly determined that the cost of a rewrite and handling all the downstream bugs and quirks would exceed the ongoing maintenance cost of just training new cobol developers.

My dad was a cobol developer (rather, a pascal developer using a compiler that transpiled to cobol which was then linked with the cobol libraries and recompiled for the mainframe), and before he retired they decided to try to replace everything with c#. Evidently a year later their system still took a week to run the nightly reports and they had rehired his former coworkers at exorbitant contractor rates.

It does work there. The unfortunate thing is that so many sites change their login structure often enough that it no unusual to discover that a site just changed again and you need to update the list.

Should have said you’d be delighted for them to visit, and then just not let them inside. Deny any knowledge of talking to them before. Waste their time and money and call them names.

I actually wouldn’t be shocked if it was possible with modern smartphones. A significant amount of money is available to be made from federal security work, and meeting the NSA criteria has benefits that extend to companies that work in the federal security space as well.

How’d that work out for Poland?

It’s unfortunate, but an aggressive shitty neighbor is your problem, even if you don’t want to deal with them.

Wow, way to bury the lede article.
“Which should we emphasize: protestors with signs, or supporters of the thing trying to kill them?”.

Clearly the existence of protestors is the most important thing about this story.

There was a time when I was a student that I spent a lot of time near a particular coffee shop, and more than you would typically expect for just studying and the like, since it turned into the place where my friend group basically hung out most of the time.
In any case, it was a decently high traffic area and since I was there a lot I found two wallets and a cellphone over the time I was there a lot.

One wallet had an emergency contact I was able to call, think it was their mother, and that I’d be at the coffee shop for a bit. They brought me cookies, and I was thrilled.
Next person just had their phone number, and they acted like I was a creep for saying I had their wallet and would like to give it back to them, so I told them I was leaving it with the cashier and left it at that and was a bit sad, since being told off for trying to be nice is a bummer.
Cellphone was the worst. I called their most recent number and told them what was up (this was clearly before ubiquitous lock screens). Owner called me back in the same number and threatened to call the cops on me so I hung up, powered off the phone and put it back where I found it. Felt sad.

Given how it seems like everyone has lost their minds now, I’m not sure I would risk letting someone know I found their stuff. I’d still try to return it because that’s the right thing to do, but I’m not sure if I’d be willing to use my own phone number or anything.
If people will shoot you for using their driveway to turn around I can only imagine what they’d do for a bus pass, student ID and a loyalty punch card for a bakery.

… What?

Your screenshot has the founder saying it’s reparable. It also has him telling someone with unreasonable expectations that they would be disappointed.

If you literally take his comment out of context you can construe it as him saying they didn’t consider repairability or lifetime. But why wouldn’t you look at the context that’s right there?

In the context of him saying the device is repairable, the top comment talking about repairing it, and the comment in question replying to that thread, it seems a bit weird to say “he didn’t say it in this comment, so the comments where he says it’s repairable don’t count”.

Sure have!

He told someone not to buy it if they expect more than five years without repairs. That person seemed to think spending more than $100 should get them a product that lasts a lifetime, and was irritated the founder said he thought it was pretty good that a piece of low cost consumer electronics made it five years before needing repairs.

What part of that says to you that it’s not reparable or won’t last five years?

How does that read to you like him saying it’s not replaceable?

Epaper and eink are different. Eink consumes no power when idle, and epaper consumes almost no power.

It reads to me like he’s saying that if you expect 5+ years without maintenance if it’s more than $100, you should look at a different product.
The top comments are someone saying that after five years they needed to repair it due to battery failure, and the founder saying the repair process is the same.

Five years is longer than the average lifespan of a liIon battery. Expecting to be able to skip repairs that long is unreasonable for a $150 product.

It reads like the founder actually giving realistic expectations. A $150 product will likely need repairs to last longer than five years, and you’ll be disappointed if you expect otherwise.

Can you point to a similar product that costs about as much that fits your criteria?

They do need to protect their branding, but only if it’s likely to be viewed as “similar”. there’s no reasonable risk of people thinking that a watch and an old processor are the same.
There’s a lot of products with similar names that haven’t had issues.

Other than the consequences that would happen as a result, it’d be hilarious if Canada ended up doing a, I think we call them, “preemptive targeted use of force against specific individuals determined to pose an active threat to national security”.

How fucked is it if another country, historically our closest ally, assassinated our president so many of us would just be like “yeah, makes sense”.

In the grand scheme of things the money from the sale of the cars is relatively insignificant to his wealth.
The stock price dropping hurts him a lot more, and “people don’t want to buy the cars” is better for the price than “people actively hate the company”.

He’s also going to have an increasingly difficult time getting the insurance to pay the sales price of the car when it won’t sell.

I don’t think they’re that clever. Seriously. I think that all the “distractions” are crazy things their major supporters want (less regulation on putting raw sewage in drinking water), crazy things their policy architects want for stupid or awful reasons (ending birthright citizenship because you think America should be a white Christian nation), naked adoration for dictators because they’re what running a country like a business looks like, or just the most transparent “negotiation” that burns good will because you don’t understand that getting an agreement is good, and getting an agreement where the other side is happy too is better.

Threaten tariffs and wait a while to let the other side offer something to get you to not do it. Threaten to annex Greenland, and then compromise on guaranteed transit rights in their territorial waters and maybe some resource extraction agreements. Same for the Panama canal.

I have my doubts that any nation is going to accept the precedent that other nations can have authority over their use of military force.

That also sets a difficult precedent, both for soldiers and the court. If following an order to participate in an invasion of another country, while only engaging with valid military targets according to the rules of war, is a war crime if the international community later decides it wasn’t justified then soldiers will become war criminals not because of their actions being brutal or unethical, but because they were insufficiently aware of the global opinion of a war.

Second, it potentially puts the court in a position where they suddenly need to imprison literally hundreds of thousands of soldiers, to say nothing of arresting and trying them. This could easily make the court appear toothless when they fail to have the power to arrest the US army, nor to actually have a place to put them.

I entirely agree we shouldn’t do it, but I don’t believe it would necessarily be an illegal order to follow.

Invading a sovereign country for overtly offensive reasons isn’t against any particular military law, it’s just shitty.

The president doesn’t have the power to declare war, only to do everything involved in a war, but I don’t think that would actually make any of the orders illegal, unless they were to explicitly do some war crimes or some such.

Weird.

I used the search function to find it, since it’s kinda tucked away oddly.