In that example the umpire's palm is facing the batsman, so that joke still doesn't work

That example would become `use Stuff\Mail as Mail1` and `use Tools\Mail as Mail2` in PHP. What's the difference?

The difference is that in PHP, the developers of "Stuff\Mail" and "Tools\Mail" would have to define "Stuff" and "Tools" as the namespace for their code.

In Python, they don't have to do anything. The project that uses the code decides.

'Nu' also has the problem of sounding like 'new', so phrases like 'the Nu variant' are confusing if spoken aloud.

I think Hay is the most famous in the UK, but there are others such as Sedbergh.

It looks like it's in the Java section because it's written _in_ Java, not because it's critical _to_ Java. Similarly, php-src isn't critical to C.

Me neither, not since I got bitten by the 'Resolve Conflicts' button on the PR page also merging the PR into the target branch.

Maybe it's PEBCAC, and to be fair it is documented[0], but the big red warning in the docs is missing from the page where you actually do the action. To make it more confusing there's also a disabled 'Merge pull request' button that implies that resolving the conflicts and merging the PR are separate actions

0: https://docs.github.com/en/free-pro-team@latest/github/colla...

One thing that is missing from an iPhone 6 or older is the Exposure Notifications API. I just upgraded my 5s, but apart not being able to use the NHS contact tracing app, it worked fine, albeit a little slowly in places.

The browser dev tools warn you about it (with links to how to fix it) and I think if you’ve got the change they also tell you which cookies have been blocked. I don’t mean that to sound holier-than-thou, even with the messages I spent a couple of hours last week debugging the exact problem you mention on an internal tool.

This is why web developers and testers should test pre-release browser versions. Better to find out that a code change in Chrome Canary or Firefox Nightly broke your website 4-8 weeks before the new browser ships than after it ships. If the breakage is a browser bug, you still have a chance that Google or Mozilla can fix the regression before it affects your users.

There's an argument to send pertinent A/B study information in a request header of some sort, for this reason. It's now no longer enough to just look at the UA.

Maybe I misunderstood the article, but my impression is that the ‘ 4% (1 in 25 users)‘ is just to make the percentages more understandable and the author didn’t only send the email to 100/25/12 users.

That's correct. I'm editing it to say "1 of every 25 users" to make this less confusing. The actual sample size was quite large.

How would this happen? I’m imagining someone wanting to roll back a change, going to Internet Archive for the last known good day, viewing the source and copy/pasting into their editor/CMS? Points for creativity at least.