I like abstractions but would love to see a programming language that includes pragmatic information about data structures within the language, particularly the memory and time complexity of their operations. What I mean is that e.g. a container library can be written in a way that it provides different implementations depending on what complexity and size estimates the user demands explicitly for the container's operations, providing contractual guaranties in Big O notation and in terms of worst, best, and average case memory consumption. The implementation may only violate the contract if another implementation is better for the provided size estimate based on measured performance (e.g. choosing a small array instead of a hash table because it's faster for n<2000 elements). If the user requests access properties that aren't available or possible, the program doesn't compile, ideally pointing out which demands were unrealistic.

Strangely, I know of no programming language that allows for that.

IMHO, the current problem with abstractions is not the abstraction itself, it's that you often have to check the implementation because the documentation doesn't tell you how much time and space it uses. That and unwanted dependencies and bugs, of course.

You can't go wrong with Chanel for summer, e.g. from the exclusive line or from Les Eaux (e.g. Edimbourg), or one of the Allure Homme Sport flankers.

Zoologist, just for the fun of having the bottles standing around.

It took five years of incarceration until Gilad Shalit was exchanged for 1027 Palestinians, 280 of which held life sentences for deadly terrorist attacks. So, that's not going to happen.

Because practically all the non-stupid ones have left. Take David Frum, for instance. He used to be a White House adviser and helped writing Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech, supported the Iraq War, and is generally as Republican as you can get. But he already joined the Never Trump Movement in 2016 and wrote two books against Trump during his presidency. Now I'm not going to say he's a totally reasonable person but at least he is reasonable in comparison to Trump and his followers, and he makes an intelligent and eloquent appearance in interviews. These people play no longer any role in the GOP.

"Adequate penis length" and "be advised that I consider you a potential mating partner" are my favorite compliments.

Why do people believe in mystical and supernatural beings like fairies, gods, dragons, unicorns? I don't think there is a simple explanation. It's a complex cultural phenomenon. Part of it is folklore, based on cruel fairy tales that used to have an educational function ("Don't go into the woods alone"), part of it is an innate desire for simple "explanations" of inexplicable or hard to explain phenomena, part of it are ways of banding people together or oppressing them through power relations (churches, bible, religious texts, oracles, shamans), and part of it may come from a desire to objectify our virtues, values, and fears (see Feuerbach's theses).

In case of the creatures you mention, it's mostly the folklore / fairy tale reason. They are not random creatures, they fulfilled specific roles in stories people have invented for entertainment and education.

Why not?

Selbstverständlich ist das moralisch verwerflich. Ein Polizeibeamter kann doch nicht irgendwas einpacken und zum Privatgebrauch mitnehmen. Das wäre sogar moralisch verwerflich, wenn ihm der Käse ganz offiziell geschenkt worden wäre. Korruption kann ganz harmlos anfangen, einen Gratiskaffee hier, einen kleinen Gefallen da, usw.

Currently yes, if you include the current species extinction, too (which is mostly caused by humans but less by climate change in particular). But the danger of a major nuclear exchange is also very real. Thanks to experience with Covid, avian flu and similar diseases might be less of a threat now than they used to be.

Well, better not talk about his Carbonara then, and what Italians think about it...

Ich verstehe die Aufregung nicht. Biden kann jetzt ohne jede Rechtsgrundlage per offizieller Weisung Trump festnehmen lassen und nach Guantanamo bringen, und er genießt dabei Immunität. Oder er könnte Trumps gesamtes Vermögen beschlagnahmen lassen. Das ist jetzt alles rechtens, kein Problem für die Demokratie also.

The headline is correct. It is reporting what Zelensky stated. You might disagree with his opinion but you present neither any evidence nor any argument for this position. You're adding zero value to the discussion.

Wir sprechen von der schlimmsten Terrorattacke in der modernen Geschichte - am 11. September sind zwar mehr unschuldige Menschen umgebracht worden, aber der "Erfolg" des Angriffs kam selbst für Osama bin Laden unerwartet. Der 7. Oktober war genau so geplant, wie er abgelaufen ist, und dazu kommt dann noch massive Geiselnahme und ein anhaltendes Geiseldrama.

Wer das verharmlost oder relativiert, durch alberne Vergleiche versucht "wegzuerklären", gehört meiner Meinung nach ins Gefängnis und ist auf jeden Fall ein Mensch, dem jeder moralische Kompass fehlt. Es gibt für die 7. Oktober Angriffe keine Rechtfertigung. Eins steht aber spätestens seit dem 7.Oktober fest: Solange Hamas in der Region an der Macht ist, wird es keinen Frieden geben. Das lässt sich leicht erkennen, wenn man sich die beiden jihadistischen Hamas-Chartas tatsächlich mal durchliest. Jeder sollte sich überlegen, welche Gruppen er mit seinen Handlungen objektiv unterstützt.

Noch ein Fakt: Die überiegende Mehrheit der Palästinenser unterstützen sowohl die 7. Oktober Angriffe als auch die Hamas, und die Mehrheit der Palätinenser bevorzugen auch eine "Ein-Staatenlösung", was nichts weiter als ein Dogwhistle für einen zweiten Holocaust ist.

As I state above, the costs increase, making overconsumption and wasteful "designed to fail" products economically infeasible in the long run (hundreds of years into the future). You can believe some miraculous technologies and energy sources will counter-act that trend. Fair enough but that's sci fi, not based on available evidence.

Da kann ich leider nur wiederholen, was ich in der obigen Post schon gesagt habe. Dass nämlich vielen Amerikanern - und offensichtlich auch vielen Deutschen - noch nicht klar ist, wie viel eigentlich auf dem Spiel steht.

"...this is probably going to drive the costs way beyond of what fares well with waste and overconsumption"

As an example, proven reserves of crude oil last 50 years with current consumption levels. Even if there are 10 times more hidden resources (for which there is no evidence), that puts the end within a 500 year range. So my estimate of "hundreds of years max" is supported by evidence. I don't see any disagreement.

We will likely have to, there is no alternative. Resources on Earth are limited and we will run out of them within hundreds of years max. For the most part, the atoms don't go away, so clever technology and recycling can compensate for shortages, but this is probably going to drive the costs way beyond of what fares well with waste and overconsumption.

Ja, ich bin ganz Deiner Meinung. Komischerweise scheint vielen Amerikanern trotz "Project 2025" und wirklich finsteren Drohungen von Trump und seinen Anhängern immer noch nicht klar zu sein, wie viel auf dem Spiel steht.

Das ist ja gerade das Problem. Fast jeder x-beliebige Amerikaner, den man von der Straße greift, könnte das Land besser als Trump regieren. Das Problem ist nur eben, dass die Republikaner Bidens Alter ausschlachten werden und folgerichtig Biden nicht gewählt werden wird. Das ist leider alles vorhersehbar. Dass beide Parteien nicht in der Lage sind, ungeeignete Kandidaten frühzeitig auszusortieren, ist an sich schon ein Trauerspiel.

Trotzdem vollkommen unverständlich und geradezu bizarr, dass ein Land wie die USA nicht in der Lage ist, bessere Kandidaten aufzustellen. Ich habe schon bei der letzten Wahl den Scherz gemacht, Trump sei das Beste, was die USA zu bieten hat, und die Amerikaner verdienen keinen andern, was selbst hartgesottenen Republikanern wehtut. Leider kann man den gleichen Sarkasmus auf Biden anwenden.

Red fox 🦊

Because I'm a big fox fan. However, real foxes stink and and pee everywhere so some poetic olfactory translation would be necessary.

Shouldn't the question rather be: Why do poor people attack rich people they don't know?

I tend to defend anyone I believe to be wrongly accused of something (based on hearsay, "feeling", mere opinion, memes, parroting others, generalizations). Celebrities are often the victims of extreme hate for no reason, but rich people are also often attacked. Many accusations against rich people are unwarranted and based on ignorance. Haters pick on these groups in general because they stand out and because of their own feelings of impotence and insecurity. It's a form of intellectual laziness.

To give an example, a moderately wealthy person who invests their money in a risky startup can get a net worth of hundreds of millions or even a billion with in just a few years. The net worth is usually to a large extent based on ownership in companies and the value of their stocks. It can go up fast but can also go down as fast. It's a meaningless measure that has nothing to do with the person or their day to day activities.

The whole point of founding a company is to limit liability, most forms of incorporating explicitly have this in their title. It's to reduce personal risk. Without such advantages, nobody would have a reason to found a company. Nobody would put up with book keeping, taxes, legal requirements, worker's protection, etc., if all of this was equivalent to just paying people as a private person and putting all the profit in your personal account.

UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer investigated the rape accusations against Assange and said he had never before seen a comparable case where a person was subjected to nine years of a preliminary investigation for rape without charges being filed. He said Assange's lawyers made over 30 offers to arrange for Assange to visit Sweden in exchange for a guarantee that he would not be extradited to the U.S. over unknown charges, and described such diplomatic assurances as routine international practice. Melzer criticised Swedish prosecutors for, among other things, allegedly changing one of the women's statements without her involvement, to make it sound like a possible rape. Melzer described the Swedish rape investigation as "abuse of judicial processes aimed at pushing a person into a position where he is unable to defend himself".