It took a long time before Linux had GLX. Arguably that was already when SGI workstations were overtaken by PCs (on value, if not outright performance for high-end SGI workstation v high-end PC, e.g. Octane). Before then, as the comment you're replying to says, you needed a commercial X server for Linux to get GLX.

It would not be illegal to breach an employment. That would be merely a breach of contract.

"IP" is a bogus, meaningless term. What do you actually mean? Copyright? There are fair use exceptions to copyright in the USA, and fair dealing allowed uses in other parts. Note that in the USA, reproducing copyrighted material for the purpose of "criticism" may be considered fair use.

Asking subordinates for sex is wrong. That there was no explicit threat made against her if she rejected does not make it acceptable.

If you think otherwise, well most of the rest of society disagrees with you in many parts of the western world: a manager who does the above _must_ be disciplined (in some meaningful way), or else the company has opened itself up to legal liabilities. A company that ignores multiple such complaints against a manager is going to find itself paying out a lot money when it loses the inevitable employment law court case.

A manager propositioning subordinates is essentially always wrong.

Even in some unlikely situation where the subordinate had unambiguously and clearly been signalling sexual interest in the manager, over a sustained period of time, the manager would be _very_ ill-advised to enter into non-professional relations while the employee was a subordinate or the employee's career could in any way be perceived to be influenceable by the manager. The manager should just not go there, full stop.

In this specific case, she'd been there one day, so we can rule out that highly unlikely scenario, and conclude that if such a proposition was made it was clear misconduct.

Mature, large companies (least, that I'm familiar with) have fairly strict rules banning relations between managers and subordinates for very good reason. Precisely because such relations are very likely to be unhealthy and improper: For the manager, for the subordinate, for other subordinates of the manager, and for the company.

Are you aware of the origin of the word "pilot"? It refers to steering an oar or a rudder - not ailerons or flaps. It is of nautical origin.

Publishing an algorithm doesn't imply publishing all possibline input to the algorithm. You can publish an algorithm that, say, contains functionality to scan an exclusion list, without ever needing to publish any exclusion list that might exist.

For some sustained period of your life, your calorifie intake exceeded your energy expenditure and you put on weight. You may have reduced your calorie intake since then and stabilised your weight gain, however you have not reduced your calorie intake and/or increased your energy expenditure sufficiently to /reduce/ your weight.

At core, it is that simple.

There are details that matter though. E.g., different foods are digested and metabolised in different ways, and can produce different hormonal and neurological responses. E.g., sugar is processed quickly, alters insulin levels quickly, and your brain tends to crave it - so it doesn't fill you up. Higher fibre, less processed, and lower glycaemic index foods tend to be better for weight control. They make you feel full for longer, take more energy to digest, and your body responds more slowly. E.g., fresh fruit is great in that respect. Indeed, even *fats* aren't a bad thing per se - probably better to get your energy from fats than sugary things. Particularly, unprocessed (esp, never significantly heated) plant fats and oils from nuts, legumes, avocados, etc., seem to be good for us.

Also, not all exercise is equal either. You see people in gyms doing weights trying to lose weight - completely wrong. Sustained, aerobic exercise using the biggest muscles in your body: your legs and your stomach muscles (for breathing - not sit-ups). Doesn't have to be super-hard either, you actually burn more fat at *lower* intensity aerobic exercise. At higher intensities of aerobic exercise (i.e. the kind you can only sustain for ten or twenty minutes), your body uses sugars as they're easier to convert to energy. If you reduce the intensity a bit, down to a level you could sustain for an hour+, you should get to a zone where your body can meet the energy demands by burning fat stores - and your body usually will prefer to burn fat stores when it can (carbohydrate stores being more limited and precious).

The biggest issue is finding time for exercise. I hate the gym myself. To get exercise, I need to build it into my life so it's simply unavoidable. For me, that means relying on a bicycle to get to/from work. Cycling has worked for others. E.g., see: https://theamazing39stonecycli... - he lost 170 kilogrammes (~376 lbs) in a couple of years, by cycling.

If you review your life, make changes to how and what you eat, and exercise, it is possible to get to a healthy weight. Not easy, but you can make it happen.

Multivitamins are pretty useless. You need a far more diverse range of proteins and other elements, than you can get from McMuffins, McBurgers, McSalads and pizza.

Oh, and also, it sounds like you eat at McDonalds for breakfast and dinner. I wonder if even the salad is McDonalds? (McDonalds amazingly can make a salad be as calorific as a burger btw!). That doesn't sound good at all.

There was an excellent programme in the UK called "Secret eaters". They would have obese people - often a set from same household - who couldn't understand why they weren't losing weight, despite eating all healthy, compile a food diary. These food diaries would nearly always show the person was eating well, and should be losing weight.

The good bit was they'd then put the person under surveillance, with cameras in the house and (unbeknownst to the people) detectives following them around. Then they would compile a list of what the people were _actually_ eating. Pretty much universally, the obese people in their programmes were self-delusional about their eating. E.g., they'd tell themselves "But I only eat a salad for lunch" while ignoring all the sugary and/or fatty snacks they were eating at their desk or on breaks before other, and/or ignoring various calorie-rich sauces or other sides they were having with the salad - that type of thing.

So, I don't believe you.

Cycle more slowly. Bring wet wipes, and wipe yourself down in the toilet.

Look at what you're citing "light to moderate alcohol drinking had no direct protective effect on mortality" - not "no effect" but "no direct _protective_ effect". I.e. it is saying there is no evidence for the hypothesis that drinking _helps_ your health.

The system is subverted, e.g. command.com has been modified, so that when Borland Turbo is loaded into memory it too is subverted. Alternatively, DOS 22h is replaced with a version that checks every disk write to see if it is the beginning of a DOS executable, and if so, subverts it. Alternatively, ... etc.

There are surely many ways. Otherwise, you are arguing that DOS is not vulnerable to a broad range of all-powerful subversions, which is patently untrue.

Not sure what car manifolds have to do with it - argumentum ad vehiculum.

Again, you're assuming that an old toolchain can only have old attacks. That's a flawed assumption. A modern attacker can subvert your system so that old toolchains are subverted to apply further subversions.

Are there practical steps we can take to raise the bar and make such attacks much harder to execute. Sure. Can we guarantee our system is free of such subversions, without either trusting others to some degree or building the system entirely ourselves: no we can't. Which was Thompson's point.