I like our European rules, when we are guaranteed PTO by law and employers would often force you to take it when you accumulated too much unused off days. The system cares even for those who would not care for themselves.

Slightly off-topic rant:

I hate how the 'VPN' term has been took over by companies selling services using VPN technology.

VPN was initially 'Virtual Private Network' – used to securely connect own (as belonging to an organization or person) devices over a public network. Like securely connecting bank branches. Or allowing employee connect to a company network. And VPN are still used that way. They are secure and provide the privacy needed.

Now when people say 'VPN' they often mean a service where they use VPN software (initially designed for the use case mentioned above) to connect to the public interned via some third-party. This is not a 'private network' any more. It just changes who you need to trust with you network activity. And changes how others may see you (breaking other trust).

When you cannot trust your ISP and your local authorities those 'VPNs' can be useful. But I have more trust to my ISP I have a contract with and my country legal system than in some exotic company in some tax haven or other country that our consumer protections or GDPR obligations won't reach.

Back to the topic:
I do not believe that all VPN services are owned/funded by governments, but some may be. I don't have much reason to trust them, they are doing it for money and not necessarily only the money their customers pay them. In fact I trust my government more that some random very foreign company.

It probably seems extra complexity for you, if your language does not use it. For native speakers it is just natural and not using it would be at least weird.

We could ask the same question about articles . Those 'the' and 'a', why use them? It only makes English language harder to use! 'Apple is apple' why add another meaningless word?

Of course after learning and using English for years I see the meaning of 'a' and 'the' and thy feel quite natural for me to (though sometimes they still make little sense to me – all the fights whether 'The' can be used with some proper name or not). The point is: a lot of features of a foreign language will fill alien and unnecessary.

Maybe more on topic, that is how/why gendered words work in Polish: noun gender is usually linked to how it ends (but do not confuse that with suffixes of grammatical cases). Virtually all Polish women names end with 'a', so any other noun ending in 'a' sounds feminine and would be used in similar way. And sometimes it just 'rhymes' – like in 'to jabkło' ('this apple' – neuter), 'ta gruszka' ('this pear' – feminine), 'ten banan' ('this banana' – masculine). Of course thing get much more complicated than that (like in every language, just in different parts of the language).

People were just talking in the way that it was convenient for them. And thousands years later scholars called this feature of particular set of languages 'gender' because words used seem to be related to genders.

Well behaving programs give control back to the kernel as soon as they are done with what they are doing. If they don't the control is forcefully taken away after some assigned time.

It looks something like this:

Something happens – e.g. a key is pressed – a process waiting for this event is woken up and gets e.g. 100ms to do it stuff. If it can handle the key press in 50ms, kernel notes it used 50 ms of CPU time and can give control to another process waiting for an event or busy with other work. If the key press triggered long computation the process won't be done in 100ms, the kernel notes it used 100ms of CPU time and gives control to other processes with pending events or busy with other work.
After one second the kernel may have noted:

Process A: used 50ms, then nothing, then 100ms, another 100ms and another 100ms
Process B: was constantly busy doing something, so it got allocated 6 * 100ms in that one second
Process C: just got one event and handled it in 50ms
Process D: was not waken at all

So total of 1000ms was used – the CPU was 100% busy
Of that 60% was process B, 35% process A and 5% process C.

And then that information is read from the kernel by top and displayed.

How does the OS even yank the CPU away from the currently running process?

Interrupts. CPU has means triggering and interrupt at a specific time. Interrupt means that CPU stops what it is doing and runs selected piece of kernel code. This piece of kernel code can save the current state of user process execution and do something else or restore saved execution of another process.

Bad zoning laws are bad. And these laws are really bad (forcibly separating 'business' and residential are makes no sense to me) , but completely deregulating that (like allowing residential building directly adjacent to a dangerous chemical plant or in a flood zone) would be as bad.

Because 3.5mm jacks suck. 6.3mm jacks are much more sturdy and can be easily mounted on 6mm or even thicker cable, which can also handle much more use.

Flimsy jack and thin cheap cable cable is asking for trouble during performance.

The only plus of 3.5mm and smaller 'phone jacks' is their size and in many applications it is much less important than reliability.

Europe used to laugh at American big cars, but recently the cars on our roads get bigger and bigger too :-(

I wonder what is wrong with the other grandpa

Suprisingly mild and not very reactive. And I wondered if this even exists.

And a lot of users' frustration, especially on more niche platforms (Linux, ARM, etc.) - things look much better on release when the code have been regularly compiled and, hopefully tested, on all platforms, not just the one the lead developer uses.

I think Java ecosystem is more about 'best practices' (in the most enterprisey meaning) than common sense and good coding. That is why everything in Java gets so over-enigeered. Abstraction over abstraction. XML, SOAP, beans, factories of factories at every corner.

At least that is my feeling, as an sysadmin (fluent in some other programming languages) who occasionally deploys those monstrosities.

Compare that to PHP apps. They also tend to be a mess, but in a completely different way. No 'best practices' are common here. Just a pile of spaghetti code, that does the thing it is meant to (until it doesn't).

I was quite involved in XMPP, not from the very start, but quite early. At first its biggest strength were 'transports' – gateways to other, proprietary, instant messengers. Having a Jabber (that what it was called there) account allowed one to talk to ICQ and AIM users. This is what pulled first users and allowed the network to grow. The protocol being open and network being federated appealed to various nerds, for whom it became the IM network of choice. Especially when they could use it to talk to friends and family on other networks.

I wrote a Jabber transport for the most popular instant messaging platform in my country. It become a 'must have' component of any Jabber/XMPP server here. And some major local commercial internet services would start their own XMPP services – finally they had some means to compete with the monopolist. For me it was my '5 minutes of pride' – my little piece of open source software would be used by thousands of users, though most unaware of that. I have also wrote a Python library and a text client for XMPP.

Then Google joined and Facebook started considering it. It seemed like XMPP will become 'the SMTP of instant messaging' – the real standard which will end closed proprietary communicators. But things didn't go well. Google would often ignore the agreed protocol, change it a bit, while still declaring full support. XMPP development would slow down, as everybody wanted the protocol to be agreed with Google, but Google just made some small improvements on their side without sharing details or participating in building XMPP specifications.

Federation with Google would become more and more unreliable. Sometimes it would work, sometimes not. Google Talk, GMail Chat, Hangouts seemed to be the same thing and not the same thing at the same time it was a mess. Then Google pulled the plug. Then every smaller commercial providers did the same – there was no point in keeping the service when more than half of the contacts disappeared.

I felt betrayed by Google (it really felt like a 'non-evil' corporation back then). But that was not what killed XMPP for me.

I would have less and less people to talk to via XMPP, not just because of Google. Other networks my Jabber server was linked to become more and more irrelevant (anybody using ICQ, AIM or GG now?). Nerds that used XMPP left it because of loosing contacts in other networks, or just moved on to Discord (yeah… nobody seems to notice it is proprietary too). I would still use XMPP for family communication, but there was the spam…

Oh… the spam. I would get over hundred of messages (or contact requests), mostly in Russian, offering me bitcoins or cracked software. They would come from many different accounts and domains. Often from 'legitimate' XMPP servers. And there were no means to reliably block it. The XMPP protocol had no proper means to handle illegitimate traffic. XMPP servers and clients had little spam-fighting measures. The spam made XMPP unusable for me, so I shut down my server too. I guess that could also be a major reasons for some commercial services to de-federate. I think USENET was killed by spam and no effective moderation too back in the day.

Then my wife convinced me to bring it back. XMPP is again and still my primary communication platform for family chat. A private server with four accounts. Practically blocked from outside. We use it because it proven to be the most reliable thing and independent from the big corporations. Even Signal was inferior to that (no proper desktop/web clients, sometimes messages would be delayed even by hours, then it even stopped being convenient when they dropped SMS support).