Sending unwanted emails - this is a great way to get added to spam filters... Do it to too many gmail users and no one will receive any of your emails.
You right to free speech does not include the right for others to disagree with you, for them to not listen to you, or even for them to not like you because of what you say - they are also exercising their own freedom of speech by doing so.
Furthermore traditionally we have drawn line beyond which speech is not free (for example shouting fire in a crowded theatre is traditionally not allowed).
>You right to free speech does not include the right for others to disagree with you, for them to not listen to you, or even for them to not like you because of what you say
No, they are unwilling to consider the merits of another point of view. They are doing exactly what they are preaching against. This is why Trump is president. Dismissing everything you disagree with. No point in listening, no point in thinking. You already know what the other side has to say, right? So you listen with half ear and wait patiently to tell them how wrong they are.
So would you suggest we should have a safe space where people have to listen to each other?
I will defend people's right to say things I don't like hearing. However I will also defend other people's right to not listen (as long as they don't try to prevent the speech from happening) - that is also a freedom.
To modify a quote: Your liberty to speak ends where I am forced to listen to what you are saying, my freedom to not listen ends where I prevent you from speaking.
Downvoting does not prevent the speech from happening. It merely says I don't like this. Flagging does...
>my freedom to not listen ends where I prevent you from speaking.
But that is exactly what is happening. Liberals, or libtards would be the more correct term, are drowning everything they think they disagree with, creating echo chambers. This is what divided our societies and brought us Trump, Farage, LePen, etc.
But:
1. in most wars the soldiers are actually fighting a very small proportion of the time. They are eating, drinking and creating waste every day.
2. Those dehydrated rations will need to be rehydrated. So you need to supply in the region of 3 litres of clean (soldiers are not as effective if they are sick) water each day (more in hot climates).
But a policy of squashing prevents two people from working on the same feature (you shouldn't squash what you've already pushed as this changes history).
*In most cases, I think we should consider invalidating secret keys instead of trying to delete it and hope nobody saw it.
Are there secret keys in your app that you can't invalidate without a lot of pain? Maybe it is time to change some things in your app.
Maybe if someone accidentally commits secret-evil-plan.txt you might want to rewrite history? I can't think of any other scenarios... I mean even if someone commits a secret key, you're probably better off revoking it and leaving the secret key there. Or should you delete that file anyway to prevent people trying to brute force your old revoked private key?
> *In most cases, I think we should consider invalidating secret keys instead of trying to delete it and hope nobody saw it.
Absolutely. AWS secret keys accidentally pushed to GitHub are abused within a few minutes. There's essentially no window where published keys remain safe.
Depends on what is "public" history. Is a branch where you working on alone public, or does it become public after merging in back to master.
Squashing a branch before merging back depends a lot of the discipline of the commiter. So for a branch with commits like "add FeatureX", "arg forgot this edge case", "ups another fix", "finally it works" it makes a lot of sense to squash it. While for "add FeatureX", "fix some linter errors during development" it makes then to leave the history as it is.
Code review is read only. Pair programming is at the same machine. Apart from that the features should be ultra-thin and delivered vertically end-to-end by a single programmer. That is the optimal model.
Letting someone have possession of property (yes tenants have possession) like this can be a dangerous thing to do in some jurisdictions - they can quickly gain rights to live there and you lose the rights to evict (or increase the rent - which could be a problem if they are charging you to live there!). Far more likely is that people start renting the empty property out+ - which will increase the supply in the rental market and help the housing costs... I.e. the intended effect.
EDITED
+ (with proper tenancy agreements which usually provide some balance of power between owner and tenant)
But that's the main difference to other countries. In Germany, it's the only way to get a tenant out (if they pay the rent). It's basically impossible to get a tenant out if you can't find a family member who wants to move in. It's a contract that can only be cancelled by one party (the tenant). Wouldn't call that no rights for the tenant. I can't think of other contracts that cannot ever be cancelled ordinarily by one party.
In most other countries the landlord has the right to cancel the agreement with certain notice.
In the UK the key is to make sure that the tenant is Assured Shorthold rather than Assured. Assured tenants can't be evicted (unless they don't pay rent or other similar reasons) and their rent can't be put up unless they agree to the increase. Assured shorthold puts the balance of power in favour of the landlord+. The default (since the late 1990's) is Assured Shorthold tenancy - but if someone tried to play silly legal games as joked about by the GP their tenant might accidentally become Assured.
I am not a solicitor. I am not your solicitor. If you need legal advice on any of these issues stop reading and find a solicitor.
+ (not as much as most people assume because most tenants don't know or enforce their rights - wrongly thinking that it would be difficult when in reality the landlord will usually fold after a couple of letters long before things go to court.)
Scotland and England have differing private landlord tenancy laws so it's worthwhile checking the fine details in this respect. Scotland has a similar agreement to the Assured Shorthold and Assured tenancy:
1. Short Assured Tenancy where [0]:
a) the tenant is entitled to remain in the property for at least six months provided they abide by the conditions of their lease. A landlord can only evict if there are reasonable grounds [1]
b) after the six months is up the landlord can then give notice to quit and the tenant has to leave [2]
In both cases these provide reasonable and fair conditions for both landlord and tenant.
In many cases now, most properties are let as Short Assured Tenancies. Anecdotally, my past three tenancy agreements have been Short Assured Tenancy agreements.
In Scotland:
Tenant deposits are no longer permitted to be held by landlords or agencies and should be deposited into one of three tenancy deposit schemes within 30 days of the beginning of the tenancy [6].
Landlords and agencies are no longer permitted to charge for additional "costs" such as credit checks and "administration fees" on top of a tenants deposit and first month's rent. In England this obnoxious behaviour is still a plague on tenants seeking to rent [7].
Most landlords are now required to register with the Landlord registration scheme run by the Scottish government [8]
Sure but you do get two months notice to quit which isn't too terrible. Most times you'll get a feel from the landlord whether they're serious about long term letting or whether this is a stopgap until they can sell their house for a better price. Most decent landlords are upfront about this in my experience.
If you want additional security you can always contract in for a longer minimum lease, for example twelve months. Alternatively hunt around for a property letting company who's long term business is just letting.
At the end of the day, nothing is permanent if the landlord stops paying their mortgage or other loan secured on the property you're renting.
There is also the social housing sector - Council Housing, Housing Association and Housing Co-op's. These can provide much longer term rentals, however they can be a bit harder to obtain due to lower monthly rents which can cause waiting lists. There tends to be less flexibility on property size and type, i.e. you'll get to rent what is deemed legally and healthwise necessary for your circumstances; for example if you're single don't expect to get a three bedroom home, those will be allocated to families.
> At the end of the day, nothing is permanent if the landlord stops paying their mortgage or other loan secured on the property you're renting.
In Germany, selling the house makes no nevermind to the tenants. Considering how many people rent here, it just makes sense to encourage long-term tenancies, they lead to better communities.
I would very much like that yet, like Germany's rental laws. That way, you don't develop a two tier class system of tenants with no security or attachment to their local community, and owners.
