I switched back because of some issue with profile management I don't remember anymore and because I wanted to use WebAuthn with Touch ID. The bug is 4 years old and doesn't appear to be moving. Once it's done I expect it'll take a few more to get support for passkeys.
That's how I've been carrying mine for the last four years and it's fine. I think you're more likely to lose it than to damage it. I have a second one that's identical (registered to the same services) that I keep in a safe place.
> ... and this is a close second favorite. Having NOT NULL constraints on columns makes schemas much more pleasant to work with, but for schema migrations that means requiring DEFAULT clause to populate existing data. While there are ways to slowly migrate to a NOT NULL / DEFAULT config for a new column (e.g. add column without constraint, migrate data piecemeal, likely in batches of N records, then enable constraint), having it for free in core without rewriting the table at all is simply awesome.
I'm not 100% sure but I don't think that's what it says. If you create a nullable column with a non-null default it won't rewrite the whole table anymore. You could get this behaviour in PostgreSQL 10 by creating the column and setting its default in separate DDL statements (all in a single transaction).
> You could get this behaviour in PostgreSQL 10 by creating the column and setting its default in separate DDL statements (all in a single transaction).
But that'd mean that the existing columns wouldn't have the DEFAULT value. And thus manually would have to update the whole table. Whereas the facilities in 11 set it on all columns without rewriting the whole table.
You still need your finger on the sensor when it actually triggers - difficult when the device you're interacting with isn't expecting a finger but a flat card.
So the total amount paid by DuPont was less than $100 million? Even with thousand of personal-injury cases pending this sounds like pocket change to a company with over $30 billions in revenues. How is this supposed to deter others?
What if instead DuPont followed proper disposal practices like recommended by the supplier of the chemical?
> Though PFOA was not classified by the government as a hazardous substance, 3M sent DuPont recommendations on how to dispose of it. It was to be incinerated or sent to chemical-waste facilities. DuPont’s own instructions specified that it was not to be flushed into surface water or sewers.
There's nothing noble here, just a company being greedy. We could still have those things you are referring to but without the costs to the public.
3M also had the wherewithal to stop making the chemical when the effects became official, so DuPont went out and started making it themselves. Nice work, DuPont.
Just because it's in the RFC does not mean it will be obeyed.
I tried running postgrey - a system that rejects senders it doesn't recognise, tells them to "try again in a minute", and accepts the second email. The theory being that spammers rarely check for these responses because they operate on a "fire and forget" basis. In reality it didn't work because lots of email services didn't correctly respond to the "try again in a minute" response - which is in the RFC!
Maybe it's an extreme example. You expect an SMTP server not to be up all the time, you don't expect them to randomly reject mail and ask you to try again later, but you get my point. It just adds to the stress/worry. I found myself default to Gmail a lot of the time for this reason.
Summary of the more interesting comments here[1]:
- the ITT (invitation to tender) had 26 pages
- questions from the contractors were answered with "this information is not required to define the price/scope of the feature but it has to be implemented anyway"
- huge scope (9 modules) + training + administering the system
- everything has to be finished in 1.5-2.5 months from when the results of the tender are published
It seems that only a single company has entered the auction for the tender because everyone else could see that the project was destined for failure. The company also allegedly employs three people and pays its programmers around 2000 zł/month (which is very low even by polish standards).
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1536482