Even with a 10% pay cut the VC will be remunerated over $1,000,000 per year, even despite the university's poor financial performance.

Having worked at a university the waste is in plain sight. Vendor lock-in, consulting fees (especially with the Big 4), high executive pay, and compartmentalisation between professional and academic staff are high on the list.

In my area (different university) there was a constant stream of poor decision making. Moving to the cloud? Let's hire a consultant to tell us what to do, and then do it in the worst possible way, instead of using internal capabilities! I suggested that the contract include provisions for "best practice" as listed by the vendor (HashiCorp) but this was ignored. The consultant gave us spaghetti Terraform code and an inefficient, high cost subscription layout.

The professional and academic staff barely talk in my experience. Academics do their own thing as much as possible. Professional staff throw solutions over the wall, mostly because of the existence of the wall in the first place.

The university was looking at using "crotch sensors" (motion sensors under the desk) to measure desk utilisation, spending money on "smart" ambient sound solutions etc. in the executive building, and other high cost solutions looking for a problem, at the same time as freezing staff and threatening redundancies. I was denied training but offered access to an LLM subscription (GitHub CoPilot) along with other IT staff, because AI is the going buzzword being parroted by the executives.

The higher education sector seriously needs an external review... and a proverbial kick up the bum.

I sold my car last year and barely gave it a secomd thought (I still have access to a car on weekends). Money, environment and space-saving were all factors.

I don't think government should be in the business of subsidising driving (which is currently the case in multiple ways). Instead that money should be used to make public and active transport safe, convenient and reliable.

I have a bicycle crate in my rear rack (40L from memory). I can just throw my backpack and/or shopping in there and be on my way. No issues transporting when empty. I avoid riding in the rain but I guess a waterproof bag would help for that. It's durable, the main concern is the rear rack. I had to replace the cheaper rack that I bought last year after the welding snapped in a few places over time (I had it held together with duct tape for a while). My new rack should be much more sturdy this time around.

I have access to borrow a car which I do every few weeks so I don't need to over engineer my bike setup too much.

Securing proprietary hardware against peeps installing alt OSes

In my country that would be a civil offence, not criminal.

I'd recommend at least taking some precautions (e.g. use TLS or Wireguard, firewall if possible).

There have been many improvements in making documentation more inclusive across the IT industry which shouldn't be scoffed at. The first that comes to mind is changing "master" and "slave" to "primary" and "secondary" (or "replica" etc.) because references to slavery is inconsiderate to many.

I don't think pile-ons are productive, but I think inclusive language and thinking is important.

Something that often gets missed is the difference between packaging conventions between distros.

For example, Debian has Apache httpd packaged as "apache2" and has wrapper scripts for enabling sites. Fedora/RHEL has "httpd" and includes conf.d from the main conf. Arch also has "httpd" but doesn't have a conf.d out of the box. Of course you can pretty much configue Apache to your heart's content and have an identical setup between all three distros.

From what I've read, Debian tends to patch and change software to fit more into their overall system whereas Fedora and Arch tend to be more upstream.

RPM and Arch both have group packages and metapackages. Debian just has metapackages AFAIK. Debian also has "recommended" and "suggested" levels of soft dependencies, the former which is enabled by default. RPM has the capability for weak dependencies but AFAIK most RPM distros don't use it. Arch doesn't have soft/weak dependencies AFAIK.

When you install a new system daemon on Debian, it's generally enabled and started by default, whereas RPM-based and Arch don't do that.

When I think of the base of the system I tend to think of some of those more subtle idiosyncrasies that tend to spread around the ecosystems, like Ubuntu and Debian behave quite similarly for instance.

I much prefer Librewolf. They are a little more transparent about it is, an independent, open source repackaging of Firefox with Arkenfox(ish) patches applied to it, rather than an entity which signs up for deals with other businesses.

Bash scripts will only get you so far and I can wholly recommend Ansible for automation.

Basically the main advantage of Ansible is that its builtin tasks are "idempotent" which means you can re-run them and end up with the same result. Of course it is possible to do the same with bash scripts, but you may require more checks in place.

The other advantage of Ansible is that there are hundreds of modules for configuring a lot of different things on your system(s) and most are clear and easy to understand.

ntfsclone /dev/sdc /dev/sdb

/dev/sdb was a blank filesystem and /dev/sdc was my Windows filesystem.

ntfsclone man page

It ran for less than a second and didn't take me long to figure out what happened. That's the story of how I stopped using Windows.

We really didn't say the same thing

It's more complicated than that. He offered to go to Sweden to face charges on the proviso that he was guaranteed to not be extradited to the United States. Sweden refused, the charges expired and the US extradition process started in the UK.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority