"Calibri does convey a sense of casualness — and more so, modernity — that is not appropriate for the U.S. State Department. And I do not buy the argument that Calibri is somehow more accessible for those with low vision or reading disabilities. People with actual accessibility needs should be catered to, but they need more than a sans serif typeface, and their needs should not primarily motivate the choice for the default typeface."
Official departmental paperwork shouldn't look clownish.
The same John Gruber that, quote tweeting a news article about Israel closing off phone and internet services to Gazans, wrote "Fuck around and find out"
> And I do not buy the argument that Calibri is somehow more accessible for those with low vision or reading disabilities
Oh well that settles it, John Gruber doesn’t buy the argument. Wrap it up and let’s head home, folks, this one’s settled, no need to refer to any actual research or evidence.
Don't worry - the conversation in the anecdote does not reflect the true position in the major common law countries at least. The public shareholder model is not doomed or flawed on this account.
If an acquirer wants to acquire shares in a public company (or any company actually) it makes the offer to the shareholders and they are the ones who decide to accept or not. The proposed transaction is between the acquirer (who wants to buy the shares) and the current owner of those shares (the shareholder). The Board manages the company but is not itself an entity (it's a group of people) and cannot therefore own shares (tho individual directors can and usually do).
The Board can make a recommendation to its shareholders about whether it thinks the offer is fair or not (based on their usually greater knowledge of the company and its worth), but it is the shareholder who decides whether to accept.
The underlying suggestion that a Board or CEO is essentially forced to do something bad for the company because of some underlying obligation to make shareholders money etc etc is false. Directors owe fiduciary duties, but they are proscriptive, not prescriptive in this way. One of the most commonly repeated falsehoods is that the Board is under some duty to maximise profits etc - that is proved wrong not least by the existence of non-profits...
The closest analogy is someone owns and investment property being managed by a real estate agent. A buyer approaches and says "I will pay you $x for the land". The agent can say "Hey I rent this out all the time, it can earn $z over t years, so I think it's worth $x + y, or $x - y" but it's up to the owner to say yes or no.
The above ignores eg competition law issues (laws that prevent an acquirer buying companies where there is likely to be a substantial lessening of competition), potential conflicts for share-owning directors, and the myriad statutory considerations etc but is the basic underlying position.
I raised exactly this possibility with them when they announced their new model. Their support would not engage with this even as a possibility. Just assertions that everything would be completely secure.
Getting access to this data is the holy grail for attackers - it is preposterous not to have a local-only or "saved on iCloud only" model. Clearly the only reason they removed this ability was the juicy, juicy subscription revenue, which requires them to hold the data.
They may have avoided a breach this time but have they previously been breached? Will they be breached in future? The possibility of each is non-zero.
Needless to say, I'm still using the older version and am planning how to transition once it stops working after an OS update.
The irony is that as a user since at least version 3, I would have easily kept paying a yearly subscription fee just for the same local+sync they had before centralizing. It’s clear that most tech businesses need stable recurring revenue in order to keep doing their best work.
They could have probably done an Amanda Palmer-style patreon (donations fund the ability to make all work public) for individuals/families and a straightforward high-cost enterprise subscription and been just as big if not bigger.
In (I think) the first edition of Zumdahl's chemistry textbook, there was a great summary of some of the things they had to do to preserve the statue, and it went beyond just repairing the skin.
The wiki article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation-restoration_of_th...) has a lot of it, but IIRC after they installed stainless steel, at some point they passed electricity through it, which had the effect of making it susceptible to corrosion, and then had to do something else to restore its resistance.
I wish I could find it now, as it was a fascinating read, but I can't see anything easily online.
The Wikipedia article mentions the annealing and then sand blasting to remove iron from the surface (contaminants on the surface of the stainless can compromise the oxide layer that forms).
stainless passivation usually involves an acid to form an oxide layer. wiki says nitric and citric, but we used to use an HF gel which was pretty damn nasty
edit: I rabbit holed a little bit. apparently its not that straightforward. the acid encourages the iron to leave the surface layer (probably through oxidization and dissolution) with just the chromium and the nickel. this then oxides in the presence of air, leaving a protective layer without the surface iron to start to rust
With respect, that's not right. I've advised Australian companies of all sizes (from one-man bands to ASX-listed companies) for decades, and they are very heavily motivated by avoiding bad press from a preventable accident, avoiding company and personal reputational damage, being fired, being sued personally (noting that eg D&O insurance almost invariably excludes fraudulent acts), suffering regulatory investigation/enforcement (including eg fitness to hold licences) and because a surprising number of people believe that it is important to do the right thing, and (contrary to popular belief on the interwebs) this doesn't change just because they are employed in a business.
In cases where there is intentional wrongdoing, existing laws already make complicit people liable both to civil action by people harmed, plus criminal or civil penalty provisions by ASIC (or the ACCC, depending on the industry and conduct). As a plaintiff, you typically join them to increase your potential pool of recoverable assets for your clients.
The same is true if there are breaches of the Australian Consumer Law, and the person has a particular level of knowledge that is below intention.
In cases of pure negligence, like this, if the negligence rises to a criminal standard, then criminal laws and penalties already apply. How and when this works has been a topic for over 50 years, since Tesco v Nattrass in the UK.
In other words, there are already very significant legal mechanisms in place, and by and large they work - and not all of them involve having executives personally liable. In any event, many already do, and this has been worked out carefully over a long period.
This is a straight up case of negligence, just via a different means and with different damage from usual. The only impediment to suing is the cost of doing so vs the damage suffered, which is still too high for the average person.
The usual way around this is via a class action, and there are already at least 2 being prepared that I know of. They will run and probably settle at some point. The main thing to be policed is to avoid the funders and solicitors taking too much of the proceeds, although that process is already in hand due to recent abuses.
Section 4 has the effect that (leaving aside taxation laws), "[t]he provisions of the laws of a State as in force at a time (whether before or after the commencement of this Act) apply, or shall be deemed to have applied, in accordance with their tenor, at that time in and in relation to each place in that State that is or was a Commonwealth place at that time" (s 4(1)) - unless the State law already had that application, in which case the State law applied untouched (s 4(3)).
There is also express provision in s 5 concerning the operation of some Commonwealth crimes provisions.
But as a general matter, if smoking is illegal just outside the Commonwealth place, it will be illegal inside it.
eta: oops, I left this open for a while before posting, and just saw others have answered.
It seems to be an LGBTQ-focused website, so it looks to be doing nothing more than viewing things from the viewpoint of (presumably) its biggest reader base...
> A corporation exists to make a profit, period. Suggesting otherwise is just emotional manipulation, albeit very profitable manipulation.
This is wrong. A corporation is just an artificial person. Like a person, it can seek a profit or not - eg charitable not-for-profits. There is no legal obligation either way.
https://daringfireball.net/linked/2025/12/10/state-departmen...
"Calibri does convey a sense of casualness — and more so, modernity — that is not appropriate for the U.S. State Department. And I do not buy the argument that Calibri is somehow more accessible for those with low vision or reading disabilities. People with actual accessibility needs should be catered to, but they need more than a sans serif typeface, and their needs should not primarily motivate the choice for the default typeface."
Official departmental paperwork shouldn't look clownish.