But it would not work on older non-GNU versions of tar.

GNU introduced the “–foo” style long options, and it was a long time before Unix versions began adopting them.

Not everyone that disagrees with a law is in a position to immediately change it.

That wasn’t luck - it was best practice backup strategy.

Tell me you’re bi without telling me you’re bi

IT has a level of access to systems that makes management nervous. The fear is that an IT person in financial trouble could use that to embezzle, or be pressured to sell access to a malicious third party.

Common in IT roles as well.

Nah. Replacing the kernel is probably planned for the next point release - it’ll just be GNU/systemd

It doesn’t break apt, Canonical just broke their version of apt just to prefer snaps now.

FTFY

Only reason it wouldn’t work is Canonical killing the .deb package. That was an unforced error. So no, still not a good idea.

The way this works in the server world is “95th percentile” billing. They track your bandwidth usage over the course of the month (probably in 5 minute intervals), strike off the 5% highest peaks, and your bill for the month is based on the highest usage remaining.

That’s considerably more honest than charging you based solely on the highest usage you could theoretically use at any time point in a 24 hour period (which is how ISPs define the “max bandwidth”) and then charging you again or cutting off your service if you use more than a certain amount they won’t even put in writing.

Even easier and more comfortable - count the pads instead of the knuckles. You can count to 12 with one hand, or 144 with two

Truck owner here who had to move from an old Tacoma to 4wd. We would absolutely have a smaller truck if they were available.

They are

Nope - it was Unix not Linux. The minus makes the command invalid on many Unix versions of tar (though most modern BSD versions allow it)

Sorry, it was Solaris - you just blew it up (the minus is invalid on many Unix versions of tar)

Salespeople would very quickly switch to knocking loudly.

Definitely silly, but [person X] is the plaintiff in those cases - United States is the defendant.

You’re looking for case law of the form “United States vs [person X]”, which the sovcits believe is illegal but exists because everyone else doesn’t know to question it.

5.6 million dollars buys a lot more lawyers than a case of candy

John Prine said it best

Off topic, but as a pen lover - those are lovely! Especially enjoyed the second two from the left.