I think your dim repo first impression could be improved; with a repo description (there is none), and instead of a description that requires pre-knowledge and one huge example, a more general, novice-friendly description and intro listing positives and short intro examples demonstrating distinct functionalities/advantages.
Given their OS prevalence, their forceful push to cloud and cloud system user accounts is unacceptable. Optional suggestion would be fine; but they're doing the opposite.
OS upgrades forgetting other programs and other program file associations while at the same time making it much harder to change them is unacceptable. Offering or suggesting their own products in a non-intrusive manner would be fine; but they're doing the opposite.
There's much more to criticize. But those are the worst and obviously unacceptable offenders to me.
Some niches switching to FOSS won't change their dominance or behavior. Only forceful regulation by state unions will.
I've learned today that you are sensitive to ensuring human readability over any concerns in regard to AI consumption
Their takeaway from
They reject with one of the reasons, and the only disclosed reason, being AI is worse at reading the form
Community says AI readability should not be a priority over human readability
That it may not even be a problem for AI to read
Suggest at least considering an improvement in a form that both can read well
is that the community wants to "ensure human readability over any concerns in regard to AI".
I don't think this is only about MS or being overworked. Yes, it was a harsh push-back. But they're responding passive aggressively, claiming the community pushes the other/an extreme when, to me very clearly, it does not.
Maybe you can say that conclusion is also due do being overworked and not investing the time to read through the comments. But I dunno. There's no need to reply in that passive aggressive tone and claiming unreasonable things.
I find that the .NET/C# documentation has great guidance for old and new concepts. There's reference docs with remarks, there's guidance and best practice recommendations, and there's examples and guided work-alongs.
Personally I've never done the examples or video or text follow-alongs. But I greatly value the concept guidance that goes beyond mere reference docs with remarks.
While it's somewhat specific to the .NET/C# ecosystem, I imagine it's valuable beyond it, and maybe a good example of how a big and significant enough project can provide more relevant and condensed information than "random tech blogs and websites" or similar.
… was a VMware bill for “10 times the sum it previously paid for software licenses,” per The Register.
… OpenNebula has enabled the company to dedicate more of its 3,000 bare metal server fleet to client loads instead of to VM management, as it had to with VMware. With OpenNebula purportedly requiring less management overhead, Beeks is reporting a 200 percent increase in VM efficiency since it now has more VMs on each server.
Damn. Pay less and gain significant efficiency increases.
I don't see how that is relevant? You're already familiar with C, so writing about C does not influence whether you will be outdated in a few years. Learning and writing about Rust could be something that becomes useful, but not necessarily practically - it depends on what you will do in the future.
If you feel you lost your passion, I would suggest learning and experimenting with Rust. It's different, so may be interesting and thought provoking to learn.
Writing down what you know about C may also be worthwhile, good, or produce a good resource, but I don't see it as much or like as sparking lost interest and passion. If that is actually your goal (you only asked about future relevancy in the end).
I talked to a friend of mine last week and they didn't know of the old PS/2 mouse/keyboard cable/sockets. They've seen it before, but it wasn't familiar to them. Nobody only having used USB devices will remember those.
Who has age authority? A state agency or service. Like the state issues an ID with age.
Preferable, we want the user to interact with a website, that website request age authentication, but not the website to talk to the government, but through the user.
Thus, something/somewhat like
State agency issues a certificate to the user
User assigns a password to encrypt the user certificate
User connects to random website A
Random website A creates an age verification request signed to only be resolveable by state agency but sends it to the user
User sends the request to a state service with their user certificate for authentication
State agency confirms-signs the response
User passes the responds along to the random website A
There may be alternative, simpler, or less verbose/complicated alternatives. But I'm sure it would be possible, and I think it lays out how "double-blind"(?) could work.
The random website A does not know the identity or age of the user - only to the degree they requested to verify - and the state agency knows only of a request, not its origin or application - to the degree the request and user pass-along includes.
I think your dim repo first impression could be improved; with a repo description (there is none), and instead of a description that requires pre-knowledge and one huge example, a more general, novice-friendly description and intro listing positives and short intro examples demonstrating distinct functionalities/advantages.