Jamie123

Anyone in the UK at any rate.

I have never been one of those Americans that harbo(u)rs a secret (or open) fascination with British royalty, but I did note the passing of the Queen's husband with regret for the family. It seems as though the very lives of the "royals" are defined from birth by their public roles. I respect those in that situation who recognize and choose to embrace their roles despite personal cost. That seems to be the path taken by the Queen and her consort. I honor them for their efforts.

We all knew it was coming. He was 99 after all, but it still feels like a shock. The Queen and Prince Philip have been part of the bedrock of this country for so long now, it feels so strange one of them has gone.
Plus I liked him. He was a funny guy.
They say that when one goes, the other follows soon after. After that...King Charles III? That WILL take some getting used to!
Anyway, rest in peace Philip. And sympathy to Her Majesty and all the family.

It dawns on me that I used to work for Fujitsu Consulting (a division which went belly up with the telecom bubble burst of 2002).  It was my second professional job out of college, and I spent a lot of my time trying to figure out what I was supposed to be doing.  I was absolutely not the best nor the brightest, and I was in constant amazement that someone as unskilled and inexperienced as I could be making the money I was.  But like I said, this was BEFORE the telecom bubble burst.  The Enron and Worldcom scandals hadn't hit yet.  Everyone was hiring anyone with a pulse.  We made jokes about the "consultant cannon", where you show up for a job interview, they load you into a cannon, and shoot you through some random high-rise window into a desk with a computer, where you became instantly billable.  
I remember working for a broadband internet company with the stated objective of bringing high-speed internet to rural areas.  I was a tester for their billing system.  We got raw data from a report, and had to check line-by-line against actual customer records, to see if the report was accurate.  The raw data included unencrypted credit card information.  We were just expected to not be crooks.  One day, some IT folks came up behind me and happily announced they had 'caught' a 'violator'.  My boss argued it out with them, and eventually won the notion that I was just doing the job I had been trained for.  From what I could tell from looking at the billing records, almost nobody was paying their bills.  The team in charge of turning off service due to nonpayment had all been reassigned to sexier jobs.  This was back in the day when telecom startups were assuming future revenue projections were as good as gold.  In the midst of all this chaos, we moved to a newly and expensively constructed office building, with on-site chair massages as one of the perks, even for consultants like me.  (This was the job where I had this incredibly powerful spiritual experience.) 
Then I went to work for Ma Bell, where I saw a project where a ton was invested in "dark fiber" (fiber cabling dug into the ground that wasn't expected to actually be used for anything any time soon).  Then Enron hit, then Worldcom hit, then 66% of the Telecom workers in Denver were on the street, including me.
For whatever reason, all my memories of those years include background music of a circus calliope.  

This comic came out like 8 years ago.  I feel it's relevant across all sorts of software security systems.

I can remember people fasting back in my student days. I tried it myself once or twice, though my roommate used to mock me for it calling it a "hunger strike". There was a young man who lived a couple of floors down from us, who who...well, I hesitate to use "***** **********" as an analogy (that's got me into trouble on this forum before) but I don't know of a better expression. Let's just say that he took "God stuff" a bit more seriously than your average student. He used to fast quite often, and whenever my roommate learned that he was fasting he would take a packet of chocolate digestives and go visit him. "Would you like a cookie?" "Go on have a cookie!"
He was that sort of guy.
(By the way, to us, back then, fasting meant going without food for 24 hours. I never heard about fasting without water until I found out about the LDS church several years later.)
I was never 100% sure of the point of fasting, though I did get that it was a form of sacrifice. Then one day a fellow student explained it to me like this: "It's a way of keeping your prayers in the front of your mind for a period of time. If you don't eat, then every time you feel a twinge of hunger it acts as a reminder to pray."
A few years later (I was a postdoc by then) I found myself dating a girl - I'll call her C - who...well again, I'm not going to go there. She had been through Bible college (though she was not ordained) had served as a missionary, and I took her views a lot more seriously than I probably should have. She deeply despised Mormonism and hated me having the BoM on my bookshelf (along with Bahagavad Gita and I Ching). She was forever fasting, and always referred to it in a manner that suggested she was the only person who ever did it. She explained it (whenever fasting was mentioned) like this:
C -  "You see, I fast once a month."
Me - "Yes I know you do. I've fasted myself too, sometimes."
C - "Yes, but the reason I fast is because God is bigger than my food."
Me - "The way I understand it is it's supposed to bring your prayers to the front of your mind. Every time you feel hunger, it's a reminder that you should be praying."
C- "No, that's not it."
Me - "So what is it about?"
C - "You really don't get it, do you? It's because God is bigger than my food! I don't even feel hunger when I'm fasting."
The best thing at this point was to change the subject. I'd want to say: "If you don't feel any hunger, what is the point? You seem to be suggesting that it's about sacrifice, but if you are sacrificing something to show that God is 'bigger' than that thing, and going without that thing costs you nothing, it's totally pointless. I might just as well go around wearing women's knickers to show God that he is 'bigger' than my wearing the correct underwear for my sex. Doing things to make yourself uncomfortable for the sake sacrifice has a long history. (And let's face it, hunger is a form of discomfort.) Why would Thomas a Beckett have worn a hair shirt (humbly concealed beneath his bishop's robes) if it wasn't uncomfortable for him? When Jesus was in the wilderness and the Devil tempted him to turn stones into bread, what kind of temptation would it have been if Jesus hadn't felt hungry?" But it was pointless talking about it. Any attempt to challenge or unpack what she said just made her more vexed. "God is bigger than food" was all the explanation that fasting would ever need.
(By the way, this is the way C was at the time we were dating. She mellowed a lot later on. I don't know if she ever got married. I hope she did - and happily.)

Like I say, we don't know that it's true, but I can well imagine a narrative in which it might be true.
The Post Office puts out its invitation to tender, and several companies, including Fujitsu UK, decide to respond
Now there's a very high-up and ultra-ambitious "suit" in Fujitsu UK who I'll call Mr. Big Suit. (Maybe its a Ms. Big Suit, but I've a gut feeling it was a Mr.) Mr. Big Suit got promoted to where he is not by being particularly clever or competent (which he isn't) but because of a ruthless determination to get things done. He's a "mover and a shaker", and as such has often come in useful to his superiors.
Mr. Big Suit is determined to get the contact, and he will get the contact whatever it takes! 
He knows that with a brand name like Fujitsu behind him, he doesn't have to prove he can deliver the goods. But he does need to undercut the competition. So he instructs his underlings - his department heads - (with a variety of threats and promises) to quote the lowest price possible for each aspect of the project. He tells them that the quote needs to be low, and if he loses this contract because it's too high, he will not be pleased. At all. 
So Mr. Big Suit's underlings give him what he wants and Fujitsu wins the contract. They now need to deliver. They soon find that with the budget they have for this project, they can't afford to employ their best developers on it. So they put together a rag-tag team of assorted people whose salaries they can afford to pay. This rag-tag team does its best, and after a year or so has created a sort-of system which sort-of does the job, and sort-of doesn't. Mr. Big Suit now fears he's heading for a train wreck, so to cut his losses he finally does send in some of his top developers.
The top developers take one look at what the rag-tag team have created and throw up their hands in dismay. "This needs to be rewritten from scratch" they say.
"We haven't the time nor the money for that," says Mr. Big Suit. "What do you think I pay you for? Make it work. Or else!"
So the top developers do their best, but the deadline is looming and new bugs are still popping up like weeds. Their complaints to Mr. Big Suit fall on deaf ears. He has a deadline to meet, and if he doesn't meet it then some Mr. Even Bigger Suit at Head Office will have his hide.
So the top developers battle on. The discovery of bugs slows down, but as the clock strikes twelve no one really believes that they have all been found, but...
"Hey, we don't know that there are any more bugs. Maybe the one we found and corrected earlier this morning was the last!"
The system is delivered on time. Mr. Big Suit gets his bonus. Phew.
Then the problems start.
Postmasters across the country are reporting accounting errors. Fujitsu is consulted.
The news comes to Mr. Big Suit as he sits on the shaded balcony of his office overlooking an ornamental garden. For some months he's experienced a deeply-suppressed dread of this moment, and now it's finally come. But what can he do? Admit that he's made a complete dog's dinner of the entire project? What will that do for the Fujitsu brand name? Share prices will plummet! Thousands of jobs will be put at risk! It will be ALL his fault, and Mr. Even Bigger Suit will skin him alive!
He puts down his Martini (which no longer tastes so good) and thinks hard.
"Well, I did employ my best people," he says. "Only at the end mind you, but there's no need to stress that too much. And what were they doing for those last six months? They were testing! They were looking for bugs!" (Mr. Big Suit isn't exactly sure what a "bug" is, though he has vague a mental image of a beetle crawling around inside a computer chip, eating bits of wire here and there.) "That's what I'll tell them!"
Presently Mr. Big Suit (Fujitsu) sends his reply to Mr. Big Suit (Post Office). "Horizon has been subjected to six months of intensive testing by Fujitsu's top engineers, and we are confident in the product we have supplied." The first statement is 100% true, and the second is only a white lie. After all, who knows if the problems the Post Office is having are any fault of Fujitsu? Perhaps people aren't using it correctly. Perhaps...oh, perhaps anything! We really don't know. Let's play another game of golf and try not to think about it too much.
Meanwhile Mr. Big Suit (Post Office) is at a total loss. The figures are right in front of him in black and white. Money has gone missing. Fujitsu has assured him that they are not to blame. And they are Fujitsu after all. If its anything to do with computers they should know!
So what else could be the explanation? The famous words of Sherlock Holmes drift across his mind...
"Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth!"
The rest is history.

A couple of years back, I wrote my thoughts on what I called "long fasting". I decided to start experimenting with it this year, and it has resulted in some insights and thoughts that I decided might be profitable to share with this forum.
I'm eager to avoid the hypocrisy condemned by the Lord in Matthew 6:16:
Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face; that thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly.
I'm mostly anonymous here, so I'm comfortable talking about these experiences. In that anonymous sense, I thought I'd jot down some notes about such fasts on this thread.
(Note: Those who disagree with the entire premise or otherwise just don't like this topic are of course welcome to voice that viewpoint. I would ask that, after voicing disapproval, those folks don't continue bothering to read the thread. I think it would be better for all parties if those who dislike the topic just ignore it.)
To begin, I want no one mistaking my meaning. Here are a few up-front disclaimers that I feel compelled to include:
First, the leaders of the kingdom of God, also known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, have told us what constitutes a "fast": 24 hours without food or water, comprising two consecutive skipped meals (if you live on a three-meal-per-day schedule). This is what we might call the canonical fast; I prefer to use the term ecclesiastical or church fast. If you want to "fast" as the modern prophets have urged us to do, this is what they mean. As far as I know, this is all they mean.
Second, I am not an expert of any sort in fasting. What I'm doing in this thread is sharing my experiences and insights. That is all. I'm not a guru, I'm not particularly knowledgeable about these things, and I'm not qualified to give expert advice.
Third, I am not saying that a long fast is to be used instead of an ecclesiastical fast, that it replaces or is better than an ecclesiastical fast. That is manifestly not my place; such a pronouncement would come through the ordained leadership of the Restored Church, or on a personal level through the Holy Ghost, and certainly not from some guy on the internet.
Fourth, I am not encouraging anyone to try long fasting. I have seen some effects, perhaps beneficial, in my still-nascent efforts. These are meant to be shared and received anecdotally. If you are in good health and think that long fasting might be interesting to try, I would not discourage you from doing so. But please do not mistake this for encouragement. It is not.
Fifth, I do believe that there is a relatively small segment of the population who ought not try long fasting, for fear it could damage their health or the health of those depending on them.
The largest of these groups might be pregnant women and nursing mothers. Not only are they themselves vulnerable to nutritional deficiencies, but their babies, whether pre- or post-natal, might be adversely affected by their mothers' lack. A second group that ought to exert caution in this area is those with Type I diabetes, for what I assume are obvious reasons. This goes for anyone else with blood imbalances or highly restricted dietary concerns. Thirdly, if you suffer from an eating disorder such as anorexia nervosa or bulimia, doing an extended fast seems to me tremendously unwise. If you were my son or daughter, I would urge (read: beg) you not to try this. The last group I would explicitly list is those in very frail health. If anyone in any of the above-named groups wanted to try long fasting, I would urge them to do so only under the care and guidance of a physician. (And given the US physicians' reflexively conservative approach to literally anything and everything having to do with health management, I doubt there are two dozen physicians in the entire country that would agree to overseeing a long fast in any patient, much less someone in the above-mentioned groups. But enough of my grousing.)
Sixth, just FYI, long fasting does not include abstaining from water. To repeat: Long fasting does not include abstaining from water. If you want to fold a church fast into a long fast, then you would abstain from water during that "church fast" period. Otherwise, those who are long fasting should take special care to drink plenty of water and stay hydrated.
Seventh and last, if anyone actually wants to experiment with long fasting, I would encourage him or her to study and ponder Mosiah 4:27. We should not foolishly overextend ourselves. If you have never done a long fast before, then for heaven's sake, don't decide to quit eating for two weeks! Use some common sense.
If any of this sounds interesting, I invite you to read this thread and participate to the extent you want to. I'll be adding posts as I go. I originally intended to include everything in one post, but that would make such a monster post that I think it's better to break it up into individual parts.
FINAL DISCLAIMER: I'm very busy at work, and I can't spend all day Sunday typing up this thread, so it might take me days or weeks to write about my experiences. If no one cares, then I won't bother, but I'm guessing at least a few people will want to hear me, if out of nothing else than sheer curiosity.

He told Computer Weekly: “To my knowledge, no one on the team had a computer science degree or any degree-level qualifications in the right field. They might have had lower-level qualifications or certifications, but none of them had any experience in big development projects, or knew how to do any of this stuff properly. They didn’t know how to do it.”
This is not even remotely believable, yet is apparently true. I have no words.

I thought this was a very interesting miniseries. It came out about 10 years ago I believe (I remember people talking about it at the time) but now the whole thing is on YouTube. It's about a girl called Amanda who REALLY likes Jane Austen novels. One day in her bathroom she meets Elizabeth Bennet (who has come through a mysterious door that leads to the attic of the Bennet house) and the two of them end up swapping places.
By the way, ONLY watch this if you have read Pride and Prejudice, or at least seen one of the adaptations; it will make no sense to you at all unless you know how the proper story goes.
Some observations: It's curious they chose an actor who looks a bit like Colin Firth to play Mr. Darcy. (I don't think anything else would have done; as far as the public are concerned Colin Firth *IS* Mr. Darcy, and will be for many years to come.) On the other hand, Mr. Collins played by Guy Henry (no, I'd never heard of him either) was nothing like David Bamber. Bamber's Collins was an oily creep, but you couldn't help liking him a bit. Guy Henry's Collins is just a creep who you can't like at all no matter how hard you try. (There's a wonderful scene where Amanda gets thrown out of the ball for kneeing him in the crotch!) Hugh Bonneville is absolutely brilliant as Mr. Bennet - as the only male in a household full of females I can totally empathize with him! Also we get a very different perspective of Mr. Wickham (Tom Riley), who turns out to be not quite as we always thought.
There's something missing though. The two "worlds" are separated not only by about 200 years, but by the fact that one is "real" and the other is "fictional". I think if I'd written the story, I'd have balanced things out by having Amanda's world also fictional from the perspective of Elizabeth's. Perhaps Elizabeth could have been reading a "science fiction" novel set in the 21st Century, which portrays our world, and in which Amanda is a character?

(I just posted this as a round-robin e-mail at work, but some of you guys may be interested too)
This article is actually over a month old, but I only read it yesterday after web-searching about this week’s news of the Post Office/Fujitsu/Horizon appeals.
https://www.computerweekly.com/news/252496560/Fujitsu-bosses-knew-about-Post-Office-Horizon-IT-flaws-says-insider
(Just in case you’re unfamiliar with the story, about 20 years ago Fujitsu was commissioned to develop an IT system for the British Post Office. This was called “Horizon”. Shortly after it was installed, money started disappearing from branch accounts. Fujitsu insisted there was nothing wrong with their system, so the Post Office concluded that its own employees were stealing. Almost 1,000 were sacked, made bankrupt by repaying the money, or even sent to prison. Now it turns out the system was full of bugs, convictions are being overturned, and the Post Office is asking for a government bail-out to pay all the compensation that’s going to be claimed. Furthermore, Fujitsu executives who testified of the infallibility of their system are now likely to be prosecuted for perjury.) 
The “insider information” in this article could be the disgruntled ramblings of an angry ex-employee, so hopefully the government inquiry will get to the real truth of the matter. Nevertheless, I think there are some important lessons here that we should pass on to students:
The importance of formal methods in the high-level planning of a project, particularly a large project involving a large number of coders. Each developer should know exactly what his/her component of the system should do, and what it should not be allowed to do. The importance of robust testing. Make sure each component of a system works correctly in isolation before connecting it to other components written by other developers. (This is what I was taught as a 1st year undergraduate learning Pascal. We always had to show evidence that each sub-program we wrote had been tested individually.) The importance of continued vigilance. Even with the best formal methods and the best testing, there WILL still be bugs. It is NOT more likely that 900 previously honest postal employees suddenly turned criminal, than that there may be a bug in a system someone has told you is infallible. (And this applies even if that "someone" represents a big-brand name like Fujitsu.) Happy Easter.

We had tacos last night. We always use the Old El Paso seasoning, which I like, but I don't believe I've ever had tacos at a restaurant so I don't know how much better they are there.
Having said that though, about 30 years ago I visited a colleague in Dallas, Texas, and he took me to a proper Tex-Mex restaurant, where we had enchiladas. About a year later, back in the UK, I went out with some friends to a Mexican restaurant, and asked for enchiladas (remembering how much I'd liked the ones in Dallas) but what they gave me was (by comparison) the most miserable excuse for an enchilada imaginable. So I can well imagine "proper" tacos being  a quantum leap better that anything I've ever tasted.

What's the difference between this thread and unfriendly vaccination nurses?
This thread is a bunch of joking perks. The nurses are a bunch of poking jerks.

Had something similar happen. 
Here in Texas, you'll see "Farm To Market" or FM roads. 
These roads were created to serve as main roads for farmers looking to bring their crops to a larger city for sale. Despite their status as main roads, however, they're often quite narrow (one lane each way, plus turn lane), and there are frequently an eclectic mix of businesses, convenience stores, churches, and even private residences just off the road. 
Even though the city I live in is the largest in the county, the county seat is actually 25 miles to the north. The road that connects the two towns is an FM, and for much of its distance it's on the narrow side. Not only that, there are a lot of hills. This alone makes being called for jury duty at the county courthouse unpleasant, as it's not an easy drive either way. 
I'd been dismissed from the jury pool (they usually call 4X as many people as they need, then wind up dismissing most of them), and was on my way home when I realized that a bit up ahead of me was a semi truck with a large cargo of gravel in an open and uncovered gravel trailer. This is often a recipe for disaster because of how easily gravel can be blown out of the trailer at highway speeds, so I slowed down enough to put about two truck lengths' distance between us. 
Some yahoo in a newer, more powerful car couldn't see the semi because we were going up and down a series of small rises, and so used the center turn lane to illegally shoot around me. This put their vehicle right between mine and the semi. 
Oops...

"Chesterton's Fence" is the idea that just because you don't see the reason for something, that's not a good reason for removing it. Reforms should only be made after you've understood the reasons for the status quo. I only recently learned this expression, but since then I've been seeing examples of it everywhere.
Chesterton's* own example was of a fence across the middle of the road. The hasty reformer says: "I don't know why this fence is here, let's take it down". The more thoughtful reformer replies: "Let's first find out why it was put here to begin with."
A particularly good example of this occurs on the roads. Driver A is in front and Driver B is behind. Driver B is a bit on the impatient side. Driver A sees some hazard in the road in front of him and slows down. Driver B cannot see this hazard, and assumes Driver A has slowed down for no reason. He swerves out and around him (probably with some snotty remark about "Sunday drivers") and ploughs straight into the hazard.
This happened to me once when two pheasants ran out in front of me. I stopped, but my "Driver B" swerved around and hit one of them. I was momentarily very angry, but then I remembered how nice a pheasant would be for Sunday dinner, so I took it home and put it out under the porch. But unfortunately (for me) Mr. Fox came along during the night and had it for his Sunday dinner.
There was another much more tragic case in the news a few years ago. On this occasion "Driver B" didn't know that a gang of particularly stupid boys were playing a game of "lie-down-in-the-road-and-see-if-the-cars-stop", and that that was the reason "Driver A" had slowed down. Consequently the boy whose turn it was died a horrible death. The police didn't bring any charges against the driver (which I can kind-of understand given the stupidity of the young man) but it does show that if you don't understand the reason for something, don't assume that no reason exists. 
*This was G.K. Chesterton who wrote the Father Brown books, and The Man Who Was Thursday. The Man Who Was Thursday deserves its own thread sometime: I'd be interested to hear how other people read the moral of the story.

IMHO, this is one of the major dangers with Critical Race Theory—it’s a crutch that tells us that the “fence” we find inconvenient (whatever it may be, whether free speech or free markets or individual property or individual liberty or parental rights or trial by jury or general meritocracy) is only there because Whiteness, and we don’t need to investigate its origins or purpose any further before dramatically overhauling that aspect of the system.

"Chesterton's Fence" is the idea that just because you don't see the reason for something, that's not a good reason for removing it. Reforms should only be made after you've understood the reasons for the status quo. I only recently learned this expression, but since then I've been seeing examples of it everywhere.
Chesterton's* own example was of a fence across the middle of the road. The hasty reformer says: "I don't know why this fence is here, let's take it down". The more thoughtful reformer replies: "Let's first find out why it was put here to begin with."
A particularly good example of this occurs on the roads. Driver A is in front and Driver B is behind. Driver B is a bit on the impatient side. Driver A sees some hazard in the road in front of him and slows down. Driver B cannot see this hazard, and assumes Driver A has slowed down for no reason. He swerves out and around him (probably with some snotty remark about "Sunday drivers") and ploughs straight into the hazard.
This happened to me once when two pheasants ran out in front of me. I stopped, but my "Driver B" swerved around and hit one of them. I was momentarily very angry, but then I remembered how nice a pheasant would be for Sunday dinner, so I took it home and put it out under the porch. But unfortunately (for me) Mr. Fox came along during the night and had it for his Sunday dinner.
There was another much more tragic case in the news a few years ago. On this occasion "Driver B" didn't know that a gang of particularly stupid boys were playing a game of "lie-down-in-the-road-and-see-if-the-cars-stop", and that that was the reason "Driver A" had slowed down. Consequently the boy whose turn it was died a horrible death. The police didn't bring any charges against the driver (which I can kind-of understand given the stupidity of the young man) but it does show that if you don't understand the reason for something, don't assume that no reason exists. 
*This was G.K. Chesterton who wrote the Father Brown books, and The Man Who Was Thursday. The Man Who Was Thursday deserves its own thread sometime: I'd be interested to hear how other people read the moral of the story.

"Chesterton's Fence" is the idea that just because you don't see the reason for something, that's not a good reason for removing it. Reforms should only be made after you've understood the reasons for the status quo. I only recently learned this expression, but since then I've been seeing examples of it everywhere.
Chesterton's* own example was of a fence across the middle of the road. The hasty reformer says: "I don't know why this fence is here, let's take it down". The more thoughtful reformer replies: "Let's first find out why it was put here to begin with."
A particularly good example of this occurs on the roads. Driver A is in front and Driver B is behind. Driver B is a bit on the impatient side. Driver A sees some hazard in the road in front of him and slows down. Driver B cannot see this hazard, and assumes Driver A has slowed down for no reason. He swerves out and around him (probably with some snotty remark about "Sunday drivers") and ploughs straight into the hazard.
This happened to me once when two pheasants ran out in front of me. I stopped, but my "Driver B" swerved around and hit one of them. I was momentarily very angry, but then I remembered how nice a pheasant would be for Sunday dinner, so I took it home and put it out under the porch. But unfortunately (for me) Mr. Fox came along during the night and had it for his Sunday dinner.
There was another much more tragic case in the news a few years ago. On this occasion "Driver B" didn't know that a gang of particularly stupid boys were playing a game of "lie-down-in-the-road-and-see-if-the-cars-stop", and that that was the reason "Driver A" had slowed down. Consequently the boy whose turn it was died a horrible death. The police didn't bring any charges against the driver (which I can kind-of understand given the stupidity of the young man) but it does show that if you don't understand the reason for something, don't assume that no reason exists. 
*This was G.K. Chesterton who wrote the Father Brown books, and The Man Who Was Thursday. The Man Who Was Thursday deserves its own thread sometime: I'd be interested to hear how other people read the moral of the story.

I didn't know there was a name for this old saying.  I just new that until you know why a fence was put up, you might want to investigate before you take it down.
https://www.northernstar-online.com/show-him-your-badge/
In my case I come into the middle of the project a lot of the time when the old engineer wasn't cutting the mustard.  They ask me to fix the problem and do it fast by putting out the fires, so to speak.  So, I have the nickname of being the "fireman."  In taking over a job someone else started, I often come across an element of design that doesn't seem to make sense.  But often times I apply Chesterson's Fence and ask myself, "Is it doing any harm?"  If not, I try to work around it.
One time I was called as an inspector on a building.  There was this device called a "holdown" (aptly named) being used on a column.  But as I looked at the structure, I realized that it served no purpose.  There was no load on this column that required the presence of the holdown.  The contractor reminded me that it was on the plans.  And, yes, it was.  But what on earth was it for? 
I was about to just throw my hands up and say, "Whatever."  But I had the thought, "If this holdown were not here, what would be there?"  There is another device called a "post base" that should have been there.  So I was going to mark it off and issue a correction.  But then it occurred to me that this particular model of holdown performed the function of a post base.  I'd never seen that before.  Neither had the contractor.  But we both had to admit that it worked.
So, I left it alone.

That may be so, but in my experience, Americans are no more guilty of such arrogant intolerance than most other nationalities, and probably less guilty than many others. That would include many who take pleasure in fault-finding of Americans and the US in general.

I haven't really been following this sordid tale (fingers crossed) but whatever Meghan Markle says, her son COULD not possibly have been denied the title of prince because of his "skin colour". That's  because (as the child of a younger son of the heir apparent) he's NOT ENTITLED TO BE A PRINCE ANYWAY.
He could be blue with purple and green spots and he still wouldn't be a prince.
He is however entitled to call himself "Earl of Dumbarton" (his father's subsidiary title). But he doesn't. And do you know why not? Because Meghan-schmegan doesn't want him to!
Piers Morgan may be an irritating twit, but he's spot on about this. Meghan was talking rubbish.
P.S. "Skin-colour" nothing. Young Archie is as white as I am, and so's his mum.

I haven't really been following this sordid tale (fingers crossed) but whatever Meghan Markle says, her son COULD not possibly have been denied the title of prince because of his "skin colour". That's  because (as the child of a younger son of the heir apparent) he's NOT ENTITLED TO BE A PRINCE ANYWAY.
He could be blue with purple and green spots and he still wouldn't be a prince.
He is however entitled to call himself "Earl of Dumbarton" (his father's subsidiary title). But he doesn't. And do you know why not? Because Meghan-schmegan doesn't want him to!
Piers Morgan may be an irritating twit, but he's spot on about this. Meghan was talking rubbish.
P.S. "Skin-colour" nothing. Young Archie is as white as I am, and so's his mum.

I haven't really been following this sordid tale (fingers crossed) but whatever Meghan Markle says, her son COULD not possibly have been denied the title of prince because of his "skin colour". That's  because (as the child of a younger son of the heir apparent) he's NOT ENTITLED TO BE A PRINCE ANYWAY.
He could be blue with purple and green spots and he still wouldn't be a prince.
He is however entitled to call himself "Earl of Dumbarton" (his father's subsidiary title). But he doesn't. And do you know why not? Because Meghan-schmegan doesn't want him to!
Piers Morgan may be an irritating twit, but he's spot on about this. Meghan was talking rubbish.
P.S. "Skin-colour" nothing. Young Archie is as white as I am, and so's his mum.

I guess I don't see the two as divergent. Being willing to submit to the will of God isn't always the same as being eager to submit to the will of God. Even Jesus himself begged that he not drink of the bitter cup of the wrath of God that his Father provided him—though of course he did so.

Remember also the Lord's prayer: "Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil". Not "lead us into temptation so we can have the glory of resisting it".