I can understand why you would think that and I agree that I'm not providing much factual information to work with. I'm not really trying to win an argument here. I was attempting to suggest that relying purely on one data set without considering the wider political and social context is a poor way to form an opinion.

I have a hard time clearly communicating my thoughts and tone via text, but please believe that I mean no disrespect. That being said, bringing up Obama's numbers in a discussion about Trump is quite literally excusing Trump's attempted atrocities because someone else was "worse" in your chosen metric. My position is that numbers don't always tell the whole story.

No, I'm saying just looking at the numbers doesn't tell the whole story and intentions also play a large role. Trump wanted to do more than he did but was hindered in many ways. He still did untold damage to our immigration systems and irreparably damaged hundreds of families. It's really difficult to explain a concept as vast as this without essentially writing a book, and that isn't my strong suit.

I'm perfectly okay with Obama also being a bad guy here, but he didn't publicly dehumanize immigrants and their families. He also didn't advocate for removing legal residents based solely on their demographic information.

From my perspective it was less about the numbers and more about how vocal Trump was about his intentions. Add to that the family separation policy and the STILL MISSING children when he's a known associate of Epstien there was plenty to be upset about.

As a healthcare worker, the nurses are absolutely not washing their hands intentionally. You'd be surprised how many healthcare workers don't believe in science based medicine.

That's kind of what I was getting at. Medium to large organizations usually require a certain level of reliability that closed software companies usually guarantee with dedicated support staff and SLAs. An open source project developed by the community with no dedicated support is risky from that perspective.

If someone with the technical know-how and ability to maintain those systems offered support (red hat for example) for a lower price, many small and medium sized companies would get on board. That could also just look like a company hiring a small team to implement and maintain their own systems while contributing back to the community project.

It's just a much harder sell to non-technical leaders. They just want uptime guarantees and fixed costs.

Yeah, channel management is super important. It's useful to have a full featured chat client that can integrate into other systems, but it's important to know what the limitations are. We use Slack for internal chat only (no customers) and it works pretty well for our use case but with all the integrations available it could easily get out of hand if we let more people manage it.

That's not a terrible idea as long as it's significantly cheaper than the closed alternatives. I think the biggest issue would be that orgs that pay would expect a certain level of service that a community project might not be able to deliver on.

Same. I also have one of the older models in that family of cases. I love the thing but need to put in a water cooling loop.

Part of it is also outdated regulations. They recently updated the regulations to allow adaptive lights that turn off the parts of the led array that would blind oncoming drivers while maintaining road illumination. The technology has been around a while but the US didn't allow car makers to use it.

That's what I thought until I got a union job that did 4 10 hour shifts a week. The work days didn't feel much longer, but that 3rd day off a week made it possible to plan short trips any weekend I wanted without needing to take time off work. It also did wonders for my mental health to have a day off every week where I wasn't recovering from, or thinking about going back to work.

I understand the sentiment, but email is a necessary part of modern life and not everyone has the luxury of paying for it.