gnull

Not sure what grab of power you're referring to.

The inflow of Russians was a boost for Georgia. These are whole IT companies that moved with workers, high-paying jobs and taxes. Many of pro-Western views and European expectations of living standards (because they're from Moscow and St. Petersburg). Check specialty cafes in Tbilisi today and see when they opened. These are the white people with guilt syndrome who will sign up to Georgian language classes to show respect to the local culture. Hell, I'm sure you can see a change in people's average views on LGBT rights since 2022, since Georgia is known to be quite patriarchal homophobic.

If someone points a gun at me, I give the money. If life is a strategy game, then this is the moment where you need to sacrifice a piece in order for the game to even continue. And money is usually a pawn in the big picture of life. I may feel it's unfair or that my ego/honor is hurt, but I'd work though that with my therapist, analyze it philosophically and decide what to do next instead of responding emotionally.

I personally don't value nationalist sentiment. From a humanist perspective, associating yourself with one specific nation and making it your goal to serve the elites who actually control it is unjustifiable. There are things I'd consider good and evil, but they're much more universal and not tied to one's birthplace, taste or mood. Education, progress, science are good to me. So if something damages these, I may call it evil.

Ukraine is not one of these though, it is a conflict where principals are fighting for selfish interests, while working their propaganda machines very hard to convince us that their goals are actually universal and humanistic, to harvest us as a resource. Depending on which bucket you ate your slop from, you get one bias or another. As an average citizen, you should not fool yourself thinking that you're one with something great that you must sacrifice yourself for it, and don't full yourself thinking you're serving some great good.

Why it's not worth it? I don't see how the quote would imply it. I don't see why they wouldn't encourage Russia to join EU too given what you wrote. In the worst case you'll get one more Hungary.

And if Russia is corrupt, you can still deal with them if you're ruled by foreign courts. Russia did comply with European Court of Human Rights IIRC right until the invasion. Something as minor as a politically partial court decision in Russia could be appealed in ECHR and Russia would pay a compensation to its citizen. If you're a business, I'm pretty sure you'll find a way to defend your interests in pre-2022 Russia.

Does Georgia "want in"? I'm not so sure what that means. The population has mixed feelings about it, as I understand from friends there. The current government who represents them doesn't want in.

> Just having access to the european free market

Again, do you think this just offers you free stuff? A marked doesn't just offer you "access", it assigns you a role you're going to be playing in it. And some roles are worse than the others, even if the marked is "good".

Are we talking about EU spokesperson calling Georgian elections illegitimate? If so, I believe your quotes show that there's no basis for that claim. The OSCE specifically says that, despite a bunch of concerns, Georgia's legal framework is "adequate". To me, that reads as "it passes the bar".

I think that a Ukrainian in his sane mind would want to look at options he's dealt and pick the one that leads to most safety and prosperity to him and his family. At the same time the government ideologues are trying to indoctrinate him with nationalism to sacrifice it all for their goals. More or less the same for an average Russian in his sane mind.

I personally believe that 2014 (and not complying with Minsk 2) has set Ukraine on course that's much worse for the safety and prosperity of an average citizen (albeit better for the nationalist ideologues). Complying with Minsk 2 would give Russia a lot of control over Ukraine (pro-Russian East gets autonomy, but gets to vote on national elections), which would be bad for nationalists who are afraid (and rightfully so) of Ukraine's young statehood sink into oblivion. But would be alright for a citizen: no dramatic change, you keep gradually improving your life, no war, you don't die for nothing.

We all have things we misuse, but I think those things may characterize us sometimes. For example, in Russian we often misuse the word Hindu to mean Indian. It may mean that the person is uneducated and maybe even unaware of the difference. A couple of my friends who've been to India or are nerds about other cultures, don't misuse the word, some even go around ranting about it.

I personally feel that the way Americans use "Caucasian" is a more blatant misuse than others, and maybe that's what made me react that way. Like what is exact idea one has to miss and be unaware of to use "Caucasian" for "white"? What adds to it is that, if I understand correctly, using "Caucasian" instead of "white" in English makes you sound more official and important. I guess I can see that it's being used due to legal tradition and that's hard to change.

The narrative "people want EU (aka freedom and democracy), but bad dictators won't let them" is a populist one. And EU has been using it like carrot and stick to steer Georgia away from Russia, disregarding the cost of it for Georgia. That time when EU declared Georgian elections illegitimate (with no actual basis provided) to me was a violation of Georgia's sovereignty.

Elections in Georgia are very competitive. I've heard that government was slowly putting pressure on media, but I don't remember anything major. Georgia could be the most democratic of ex-USSR except Baltics today.

I, on the other hand, criticized it as a complete interface made with some workflow in mind that would need no wrappers, would help the user discover itself and avoid footguns. Your interpretation sounds like what the authors may have had in mind when they made it.

> who’s trying to audit use of these tools without the manual?

I'd try to work on different levels when understanding some system. Before getting into details, I'd try to understand the high-level components/steps and their dataflows, and then gradually keep refining the level of detail. If a tool has 2-3 descriptively named arguments and you have a high-level idea of what the tool is for, you can usually track the dataflows of its call quite well without manual. Say, understanding a command like

  make -B -C ./somewhere -k

  make --always-make --directory=./somewhere --keep-going

I honestly tried putting yours into a table and couldn't in a way that makes it look defensible. About 2025: I generally find a bit of cheeky tone appropriate for a dramatic effect, apologies if I offended you.

A suggestion on how you could approach it: try to make a table with 2-3 columns for the solutions you and I are comparing. And add a row for each aspect or characteristic you want to compare them with respect to; for example, usability, ease of implementation, room for error, you name it. In each cell, put either + or - if a solution is clearly managing that aspect well or badly, or a detailed comment. Try to express all of the things you're feeling and that are coming to your mind. My comments are written with a table like that in mind, they easily translate to one. Once you have made your table and established that we disagree on what some cell should contain or what rows/columns should be present, feel free to get back to have an actual discussion.

I can't understand why you keep inflating the difficulty of simple commandline parsing, which the tool needs to do anyway — we shouldn't even be talking about it. Commandline parsing code is done once (and read once per audit) while a hostile user interface that bad commandline creates takes effort to use each time someone invokes the tool. If the tool has 1000 users, then bad interface's overhead has 1000× weight when we measure it against the overhead of implementing commandline parsing. This is preposterous.

> Not involving argument parsing simplifies the interface

From interface perspective, how is `5>secretkey` simpler than `--sk secretkey`? The latter is descriptive, searchable and allows bash completion. I'll type `ed25519-keypair`, hit tab and recall what the argument called.

You can't justify poorly made interface that is unusable without opening the manual side by side. Moreover, the simplest shell scripts that call this tool are unreadable (and thus unauditable) without the the manual.

  ed25519-keypair 5>secretkey 9>publickey

One open syscall in addition to dozens already made before your main function is started will have no observable effect whatsoever.

Makes your commands unreadable without a manual, leaves a lot of room for errors that are quietly ignored. And forces you into using a shell that comes with its own set of gotchas, bash is not known to be a particularly good tool for security.

And to those who stay this adds flexibility: it doesn't. Those file descriptors are available under/dev/fd on linux, with named options you can do --pk /dev/fd/5. Or make a named pipe.

The clowns and the reasons that drive them are the same for Middle East and Venezuela. Does it make it any better that they happened to have a casus belli that you or I may sympathesize with, given that the reasons not in line with our values? Even a broken clock is right once a day.

Reminds me of this speech by Leon Wieseltier.

Maybe they were in the 80. In 2025, language design has moved ahead quite a lot, you can't be saying that seriously.

Have a look at how clash-lang does it. It uses functional paradigm, which is much more suitable for circuits than pseudo-pricedural style of verilog. You can also parameterize modules by modules, not just by bitness. Take a functional programmer, hive him clash and he'll have no problems doing things in parallel.

Back when I was a systems programmer, I tried learning system verilog. Had zero conceptual difficulty, but I just couldn't justify to myself why I should spend my time on something so outdated and badly designed. Hardware designers at my company at the time were on the other hand ok with verilog because they haven't seen any programming languages other than C and Python, and had no expectations.

Then you reach derandomization and it hits you once again, it shows you that maybe you can "cheat" in the same way without randomness. Not for free, you usually trade randomness for a bit more running time, but your algorithms stay deterministic. Some believe all probabilistic algorithms can be derandomized (BPP = P), which would be a huge miracle if true.

That simulated candle is perfectly melting wax in its own simulation. Duh, it won't melt any in ours, because our arbitrary notions of "real" wax are disconnected between the two simulatons.

This comment here, I think, has the answer. The inial returns from using the more functional and mathematical view of programs are smaller than that of traditional approach. But the former scales better if you invest more time in it, and eventually can give you much more.

Even if we don't like a law, it's a law, and you live in reality where it applies — and you should use it when needed. I don't find it bizarre at all.

I think you can prove that one can't just map the edge weights (so that edge's new weight only depends on its original weight) to make all weights positive, and also preserve all shortest paths.

You may try something more complex, i.e. where the new weight of an edge would depend on some more edges around it. But then the cost of doing so may be close to Bellman-Ford algorithm itself.

How exactly?

Does this mean that Sweden is a good place for people who are, like the author, critical of the wokeness and "cancel culture"? I used to think they're the ones setting the trend there. I don't understand anything now.

In this case you are exempt from that principle because following it will cost you disproportionally more than the possible damage done if you're wrong. Not because universal justice principles somehow become inapplicable outside of courtroom.