CorrectHorseBat

Android makes a sport of breaking ABI compatibly and it hasn't stopped it from being the most popular mobile OS

Yes, that was clear to me from the article and the discussion. My point is that to someone who knows about Gauss' formula but doesn't know anything about compilers might not understand what the fuss is about.

>but the second that voice starts speaking sentences and I need to understand in real time, I freeze up. The real progress is conversing!

What helped me a lot was doing a lot of listening exercises. Start with concentrating on what you can recognize, not on what you can't. Then listen again and and again and again trying to recognize more and more.

It's something we saw in highschool, I would expect anyone with a CS degree to recognize this optimization.

I barely know anything about compiler optimization, so I have no clue whether a compiler applying this optimization is surprising or something trivial.

Not only do tracks cross, trains also share tracks and platforms. In Shanghai only Line 3 and 4 share tracks and platforms.

Your map only shows ICE/IC lines, there are many more other lines which share the same tracks. This shows a more complete picture: https://www.deviantart.com/costamiri/art/Transit-diagram-of-... but it still doesn't show international trains and freight.

I think your issue is just that your grammar was wrong.

是的(Shide) is the closest thing to yes in Mandarin, but it's as universal. Answering 是的 on the question 你会中文吗 is like answering "yes I am" on the question "do you speak English?". 可以 isn't correct either, unless they asked 你可以说中文吗？, which is more like "Can you switch to English?" And not "are you able to speak English?" if I'm not mistaken.

Answering 我会 is perfectly fine, even if you don't speak perfectly Chinese. If you want to sound be more humble you can say（我会）一点点/丢丢. 还可以 doesn't fit the pattern either, but it is ok too I think.

Not a native speaker though.

More on topic: To me not bad/不错，no problem/没事 are just as positive in English, maybe even more in the case of no problem. But I'm not a native speaker of either.

Every variant is a different font. IMO Han unification is one of the greatest failures of Unicode.

Nice theory, but my experience is exactly the other way around.

Even after several years of learning Chinese I still had trouble communicating with Chinese people, especially those who had no experience talking to foreigners. When I arrived in China and asked the way to the university I was going to (which was close by and very famous) they just didn't get what I was saying. In the end I had to show them the written word.

I don't speak Japanese, but when I arrived and said the name of the city and they immediately understood where I wanted to go. After my experience with Chinese I was flabbergasted that that went so smooth.

I blame the tones in Chinese (which I admit I'm not very good at)

But why would anyone else being able to deliver at the same time get anything less?

I agree there's actually an issue here, ideally the price should be set by the next seller which just didn't get to sell.

Right now providing grid stability is maximally rewarded because you get paid a lot when it's needed and little when there's a lot of electricity available. Storage providers can use this spread to make money and create grid stability.

I'm not sure what you mean by second peak market?

Let me turn around the question, why should a gas plant get more for its electricity when it's indistinguishable from solar electricity?

>Once EU finally gets rid of the ridiculous pricing model where spot prices are dictated by the most expensive energy source (usually, gas), we might have a situation where grid costs exceed the cost of energy itself.

Why is it ridiculous? From a pure mathematical economics point of view it's genius I think. It means energy producers can just set their price at production price, knowing they will get the best deal that way and thus don't need to speculate on the electricity prices. It makes electricity as cheap as possible when it's abundant and expensive when it's not, also incentifying users of electricity to shift their consumption.

What's a better way of doing it?

Look at the names in the PEP [1], this PEP is written by them

[1] https://peps.python.org/pep-0810/

But why then switch?

In The Netherlands it's €0.90-1.30/kWp for installation of rooftop solar, everything included. Here in Belgium it's maybe 10-20% more I think, no permits required. Neither country have particularly low labour costs.

My e-bike has regen braking and it's definitely noticable, but I don't know how much it helps

My Stromer ST3 weights about 30kg, has an 1kWh battery but doesn't come anywhere close to even 100km range at full speed.

I suspect pedal-by-wire will only be slightly heavier since it doesn't need gears, but the range will probably be even worse.

Certainly possible with fzf, everything you need is in the fzf docs. Here's something in vimscript (sorry) that does that: https://github.com/Emilv2/siefe.vim/blob/8432406581acbf450b5...

I just found out the authors of both ripgrep and fd work for Astral, no wonder Astral makes such great software

We used to have something like this in Belgium where you could load money on your debit card:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_(debit_card)

Congratulations, you have invented tcl

JJ absorb does the same as far as I understand

I wish ;) You're talking about how Rust code usually uses the MIT license and this is a part of the MIT license?

Every open source license has a very similar clause, include but not limited to BSD, GPL, CDDL, MPL and Apache.

A standard clause you can find in every open source license? It doesn't say anything about how serious the project takes security

All of the West has social housing subsidised by the government. A quick Google tells me most of Western Europe has a much higher percentage of people living in social housing than China.

>China is a command economy. There are issues with housing in China but they're far less severe. Hoarding of property basically doesn't happen. China considers housing to be a public right, which it is.

How do you come to that conclusion? As far as I understand it it's the complete opposite, housing is basically the only way the Chinese can invest. Hoarding is rampant, those who got in early have several properties, the rest nothing.

Design for test is still a major part of (high volume) chip design. Anything that can't be tested in seconds on wafer is basically worthless for mass production.

Both can be true at once.

They didn't want a standard other people could adapt easily nor do the work to make Word adhere to one and it had to happen fast. By doing it the way they did they got everything they wanted and only needed to buy ISO.

Is this not simply how markets work? Everything is sold at the marginal price.

You could change that, but it would just mean prices will be higher at another moment (in a perfect market), no?

>If you think the UK gov’t was in any position to piss China off then (or now!) without it costing them and anyone else involved far more than it’s worth, I don’t know what to say.

Oh no, I definitely don't think that.

>It’s honestly amazing that China didn’t apply more ‘direct’ pressure to get HK bad sooner. There is nothing the UK likely would have done about it. Bad for business I guess? Macau transferred over around the same time.

The 80-90's were a bit too early to take such a risk I think, now they wouldn't take such a deal. The British likely got the best deal they could get.

>The Qing dynasty ‘remnants’ in Taiwan would have just been steamrolled if they’d gone anywhere near it. And not like there was any real cultural reason why HK’ers would accept them anyway, or that the Qing were well loved. CCP steamrolled them in mainland China like they did because they were, by all accounts, terrible.

The Republic of China government is no more (or less) a Qing dynasty remnant than the CCP is. They were indeed terrible, but that's a long time a go, most people involved are dead by now and the country has changed a lot. The CCP on the other hand is going back to the Mao era.

The civil war took two decades, in which the Kuomintang nearly defeated the Communists and had to fight off the Japanese while the Communists got bankrolled by the Soviets. I'd hardly call that steamrolled.

That's a possible explanation, but I'm not completely convinced it is without numbers. Maybe it's those under 35 who don't remember the bad of the British rule?

But even then, less than 50% of people under 35 call themselves Chinese (not even both Hong Konger and Chinese). And half of the adults call China a major threat, 22% a minor threat. Those are pretty bad numbers for indoctrination.