If voters bear no responsibility, do you really believe in democracy, or are you thinking about this as an issue to be solved by authority?

The self-righteousness of this discussion is a problem. Politics requires some humility, which we seem to be short of.

As I've said elsewhere: I wonder what controls Mozilla has in place to prevent gradual takeover of their board by those with an interest in removing Firefox as a competitor. We've watched the sleeper cell in the Supreme Court transform that body into an illegitimate partisan puppet. Mozilla's actions over the last few years would make much more sense if it were being manipulated into self destruction.

When did brute force switch from being an antipattern to the preferred pattern?

USB-A requires three attempts to connect, C only one.

They've put all their eggs in the Trump basket, with no clear line of succession. Once he is humiliated again this year, the fever will break for some, and the rest will splinter into infighting. This was their last clear path, which is why they are forcing through everything they are able while they can.

How precise is this translation?

I've also heard "From many, one", which can be taken two ways: the same celebration of the individual (presumably over other individuals), or that the many come together as one, which is a much clearer call to action.

I prefer the Voltron version.

Like sending a few choice SCOTUS judges to gitmo

There is work like construction, transportation, and customer service that can't really be remote.

I'm not sure if there's a good argument for work that can be done remotely to insist on both in person and remote work. It doubles the amount of workstation resources required, or compromises on at least one of them.

Maybe teams benefit from in-person communication? That's probably simpler for some that haven't found comparable online versions of whiteboarding tools or whatever. Good tools do exist, but feel people that haven't adapted to them by now, it'll take some real demand to make it happen. This might not be a characteristic of a highly effective team, though.

Most frequently, hybrid insistence seems do be more about justifying middle management, based on my highly unscientific observations.

He took a series of very shallow breaths, and then said as quickly and as quietly as he could, 'Door, if you can hear me, say so very, very quietly.'

Very, very quietly, the door murmured, 'I can hear you.'

'Good. Now, in a moment, I'm going to ask you to open. When you open do not want you to say that you enjoyed it, OK?'

'ΟΚ.'

'And I don't want you to say to me that I have made a simple door very happy, or that it is your pleasure to open for me and your satisfaction to close again with the knowledge of a job well done, OK?'

'ΟΚ.'

'And do not want you to ask me to have a nice day, understand?"

'I understand.'

'OK,' said Zaphod, tensing himself, 'open now.'

The door slid open quietly. Zaphod slipped quietly through. The door closed quietly behind him.

'Is that the way you like it, Mr Beeblebrox?' said the door out loud.

— Life, the Universe, and Everything

So do feature testing, not user-agent sniffing! For Pete's sake, it's 2024! That's been the best practice for decades!

But voting third party doesn't actually accomplish anything. Take it from someone who did it for decades. It doesn't shake up or change the system, it just perpetuates the minority rule set up by Project Redmap.

The right way to do it is to vote your conscience locally, until there is enough support at higher levels. Skipping right to voting for third party presidential candidates is simply naive, I'm afraid.

Edit: Steve Hofstetter lays it out well (I wish I could find this one elsewhere) https://m.facebook.com/stevehofstetter/videos/why-voting-third-party-for-president-makes-no-sense/359024631794244/

He's active on Mastodon, too!