I think this will be full of similar experiences: Some time ago my wife's cards suddenly got all kinds of charges, clearly not ours. So we call the bank and while they put the blame on us, among other things they said the bank never ever would contact us by SMS and we may have clicked on dodgy links in one of those messages.
Eventually they decide we should replace all our cards. 5 minutes later we get an SMS asking us to call an unknown number to set our PIN code for the new card. It contained at least 5 warning signs as in the author's article.
We call them back asking them what that SMS is about and the only explanation is "That is the good kind of SMS, you can trust it"
(Eventually we did get all stolen money back, but it took a while. We never got a plausible explanation of what may have happened and what we could do to prevent it in the future)
In Europe sleeper trains have become somewhat extinct. High speed rail is just so fast and Ryanair so cheap, they became unprofitable.
However, there seems to be a revival going on. Especially the Australian railway operator (OBB) is investing a lot in their Nightjet trains. Some of the trains allow you to take your car with you.
I'm not sure if they are profitable, but they seem to be fully booked during the summer months (we had to book 2+ months in advance last year)
To understand article 11, I think you should look at the reason it was created: Journalists (and newspapers) are looking for a way to get paid for their articles beyond luring people to their sites with clickbait titles and tons of ads.
They want their own "article version" of Spotify, where they get a set amount for every article read. Obviously that's difficult to implement given the current way of the Internet (= Facebook sharing) and this is their attempt at getting their dream.
Is this a good idea? You could say it may improve news reporting if it was well implemented. Or it could be completely abused. Anyway, looking at it like this, explains some of the legalese in article 11.
If you want some of that back, look into a combination of Boomerang for Gmail (needs a browser extension) and Multiple Inboxes (in advanced tab of gmail settings)
I use Boomerang for all kinds of reminders. For me it works better than Inbox did and it was the reason why I went back to Gmail after trying Inbox for about a month.
I use a multiple inbox pane "is:starred" for pinning emails.
I never really "got" bundles. It was more of an annoyance to me and I prefer manual labeling.
I just recently installed a piece of software written in Go, from source, on Ubuntu 14.04. It wasn't so nice for a non-Go-programmer.
The instructions wanted me to download a binary tarball of Go and untar it directly into /usr/local. As if I would never need to uninstall it. Apparently even though the version of Go has changed several times since Ubuntu packaged it, they think this will be the last version ever, or something?
I ended up hunting for an Ubuntu PPA that had it instead. Of course all the accepted answers on Stack Overflow point to PPAs that don't exist anymore. A comment sitting at some tragically low score saying "hey, try this one instead?" pointed me to something that worked.
I think you dealt with it the first time and you've gotten used to it. (And maybe there's some nice way to get a newer version of Go when you already have Go.)
OOI, is godeb[0] the something that worked? It "transforms upstream tarballs for the Go language in deb packages and installs them". It's always worked well for me.
For reference, I'm referring to the directions you get at the top of the search results when you type "installing go on ubuntu" into Google.
The directions link to Stack Overflow, though I don't know how the search result picked out these steps, as Stack Overflow has a different accepted answer that doesn't work. Intervention by Google, possibly?
I didn't realize it would only make one directory. That is reassuring. I would still prefer packages as a way to install, upgrade, and remove Go, instead of remembering months from now that Go is installed differently from everything else and there's this directory I need to mess with.
Now, that all would have been more intuitive as something to do in my home directory. If it only needs one directory and it can go anywhere, why would these Google-blessed directions tell me to mess with /usr/local? I believe you, I just assumed that people would be averse to messing with system files without a package if there were any other option.
(I think of Python, where the one thing you're supposed to do with your system Python is use virtualenv to install a non-system Python. Which is another example of something that's only clear to veterans of the language.)
Now... this is a problem with a whole lot of programming languages. Programming languages change. Their libraries change way too fast for an OS-approved package manager to keep up, so you need a package manager for your language. And that changes too, and nobody designs their packaging system to smoothly update to a better packaging system designed by someone else.
Maybe one day every programming language and OS will unite under one purely functional packaging system and never replace it... haha, no.
I would like to see a more compact dashboard though. One screen that shows me how successful I am on all my questions (I only entered yes/no ones and probably won't use anything else, except maybe the quantity)
Exactly, as a single consultant, I don't have the time to sell to every one, so I use this tactic to pre-qualify potential clients.
It's also a great way to learn more about the customer and try to judge your potential value to them, thus giving you both a better insight in whether or not it is actually worth going into the details of price.
Eventually they decide we should replace all our cards. 5 minutes later we get an SMS asking us to call an unknown number to set our PIN code for the new card. It contained at least 5 warning signs as in the author's article.
We call them back asking them what that SMS is about and the only explanation is "That is the good kind of SMS, you can trust it"
(Eventually we did get all stolen money back, but it took a while. We never got a plausible explanation of what may have happened and what we could do to prevent it in the future)