> You can't re-arrange sub-windows with the mouse (drag).

Just a nit-pick:

You can configure that with tmux (and possibly screen, I don't know). It has the downside that the user needs to know to press shift while clicking when they want to route mouse actions to the terminal emulator (e.g. to select text) instead of tmux or the applications running inside of it.

No, there is no such paragraph. The German constitution guarantees freedom of opinion - not speech.

So you can’t get prosecuted for disliking someone (and saying so) but you can for saying insulting or untrue (e.g. holocaust denial) things - those are not opinions.

Well you can get convicted for saying you like a joke. That did happen.

Here in Germany early college math classes were mostly a rehash of everything from school, but with much more rigor and sometimes more detail.

So I'd recommend some college textbooks. If you live near a college, their library should have a ton of them to browse through and lend. You should also be able to find accompanying lectures on YouTube or college web sites.

This bug is a year old, and Firefox Preview / Fenix has in the meantime gained support for uBlock. Considering that's mentioned as motivation for native support, I'm not sure this is still planned?

The standard python linters can do it:

    $ flake8 foo.py
    foo.py:6:14: F821 undefined name 'q'

    $ mypy --check-untyped-defs foo.py
    foo.py:6: error: Name 'q' is not defined

(They also have some other complaints about your code that you'd either have to disable or adjust to.)

My note: invoking the first on the given example produces 17 lines of different complaints, most totally irrelevant to the validity of the code (of course it complains about the "style" -- it was written as a "Tool For Style Guide Enforcement"). Invoking the second without the magical switch --check-untyped-defs produces:

    Success: no issues found in 1 source file

and additionally produced a .mypy_cache folder of 2 MB at the place where the script was.

So the style of "unreasonable" defaults of Python alone (not detecting the error, speaking from the point of view of a user of Perl) propagates to the "unreasonable" defaults of the checkers.

Still thanks Ded7xSEoPKYNsDd, I really wasn't aware of these! Yet, even if I haven't formally specified that, I was looking for the way to do it with the Python as the language and its default interpreter alone, as for Perl nothing additional has to be installed:

    use 5.010;
    use strict;

    sub f {
        my $x = shift;
        $x += $q if ( $x == 4 );
        say $x;
    }

    f( $ARGV[ 0 ] );

Gets me:

  Global symbol "$q" requires explicit package name (did you forget to declare "my $q"?) at ex-undefined.pl line 6.
  Execution of ex-undefined.pl aborted due to compilation errors.

I am aware that for shell I'd need an additional shellcheck but Python is many, many times bigger than the shell binary alone (or even the sum of the shell and shellcheck binaries), and actively changed, whereas the shell semantics is standardized and effectively frozen in time, and from the shell interpreter alone a very low startup overhead is expected.

openssl can also do it. no dirlisting though.

    openssl req -x509 -newkey rsa:4096 -keyout /tmp/key.pem -out /tmp/cert.pem -nodes && openssl s_server -WWW -port 8443 -cert /tmp/cert.pem -key /tmp/key.pem

As someone who regularly needs to report security vulnerabilities to projects hosted on Github, I find it incredibly annoying that I can't create one of these 'maintainer advisories' (or just a regular issue that's non-public) as an outsider.

These 'security.md' files would work for me just as well to define a security contact, but I've never come across one of these in the wild... so I end up wasting my time hunting down maintainers and their email addresses, when everyone involved would have a much easier time if it were all handled through Github by allowing everyone to create a (draft) 'maintainer advisory'.

No 'background checks' by private investigators in Germany. Some employers ask for a police certificate of conduct. There's a law saying which kind of convictions are listed there (nothing below a certain amount of days) and how long (to allow re-socialization).

I've seen a lot of criticism of this approach - hiding vulnerabilities, instead of actually fixing them. Other mitigations actually prevent exploits (e.g. the combination of NX and ASLR raises the bar for getting code execution: suddenly interactivity and an address leak are required in addition to a stack-based overflow) whereas your mitigation (?) just sweeps bugs under the rug.

From my own skimming of the paper, the discussion of 'why?' boils down roughly to 'exploits are sometimes used for bad things'.

Do you believe your approach will actually improve the security of any systems, or will it just allow lazy vendors to hide their shallow bugs - leaving them to the most motivated (e.g. nation-state) adversaries?

My understanding is that in your 2nd scenario (contractor), the tax/social security authorities might at some point decide that this is Scheinselbständigkeit, and therefore it's actually been scenario 1 all along. What I'm unclear about is whether they'll try to collect from the worker in DE or the company in the US.

AFAIK Scheinselbständigkeit is a threat for the company, not the worker... and it's not a threat if the company is not based in DE.

But then, I always maintained one or two other contracts on the side. They made up less than 5% of my income, but their names were in my list of invoices. My tax advisor thought this was a good idea.

Probably from me. It wouldn't even be a problem for me. I even would pay all of this upfront so there is no hassle five years later.