I understand that Brussels Airlines has more on its shoulders than properly configured SPF records and decent email content, but still, WTF?

Just for the record and because I've been asked about this a couple of times, already:

Technically,

• SWIFT became redundant after Diffie-Hellman key exchange protocol was described in 1976.
• Euroclear became redundant when blockchain technology came out in 2009.

A couple of useful git commands for styding big git repositories:

Rank contributors by contributed lines of code in HEAD

git grep --cached -zIle '' |\
     xargs -0n1 git blame -e |\
    sed  -n 's/^.*(<\([a-zA-Z.]*\)@.*/\1/p' |\
    sort|uniq -c|sort -rn >authors-by-line.txt

sort branches by last modified date in the remote repository

git for-each-ref --sort=-committerdate \
    --format='%(committerdate:short)%(authorname)%(refname:short)' refs/remotes >branches-by-date.txt

Whether you order designs from
99designs or from an in-house designer,
use this simple rule of thumb:

Your most valuable content should be the most contrasted.

Here's why. Bad designs are wildly different, but all good designs share one
thing in common: they put your content first. As I am writing this, I realize
that the text I am typing appears in charcoal gray or #4d4f51 while the title
is all black. This is inconsistent at best, but not everything is lost for
LinkedIn — the list of my last posts on the right is in a lighter gray #96999c
and the editor buttons are even lighter than that.

The poster boy of good design, Boston Globe, displays text as black #000000 on
all-white background #ffffff while their menu items have varying levels of
greyness, from a rather dark #464646 on white to the same dark #464646 on
neutral gray #eeeeee. This is good design — the most important thing Boston
Globe has is news, and their news enjoy the most contrast you can get: all
black text on all white background.

However, many websites have their main content in a rather worn-out pale black, while surrounding elements are flashy and attractive. Check for instance BBC.co.uk, their content is shown in dark gray #404040 while the navigation is in all-black #00000.

We've already seen it in 2009. The European Commission could have built an exemplary anti-trust case against Microsoft for forcing manufacturers to bundle its operating system with the computers. Instead, it targeted a smaller issue of tying the web browser to the operating system. Since then, Microsoft lost the browser war on technical grounds, and Internet Explorer became known as a tool to download Google Chrome on a fresh computer.

The only real impact of the 2009 Commission's decision on consumers was negative. A sudden drop in the quality of email rendering in Microsoft Outlook 2010 and all the later versions comes from the fact that Microsoft teared off the Internet Explorer's component from Microsoft Office and replaced it with a much older and less capable library developed in the early 80s and initially used to display RTF documents. So, whenever you see bulky fonts and ugly formatting in your Microsoft Outlook, don't blame the sender, blame the European Commission.

This old story repeats with Google. They took on an irrelevant issue of Google Shopping search results, instead of picking one of the well-publicized issues of:

* abuse of control over the Android ecosystem
* Gmail interoperability with small independent mail servers
* Gtalk and Google Hangouts interoperability with third-party XMPP servers
* Google Single Sign-On interoperability with regards to industry standards

…the list can go on and on.