mhermher

Same. We use both. Slack for chat. Mostly Teams for video.

I remember the Java updater, which basically anyone using a computer had to occasionally update.

For me, it's more of a database to keep track of books I want to read in the future. I can't read everything immediately after reading a recommendation or seeing it mentioned somewhere. Mostly I use goodreads to organize this list. It ends up getting into the "read" list after, but that part isn't as important. And when I am approaching an empty stack of books to read, I go on there and try to pop from the top of the stack on my "want to read" high priority list.

Also yeah, the recommendation system is pretty bad. I can't believe they can't do better with all the ratings data they have. I get recommendations externally, but track them in goodreads.

Maybe my queries are not difficult enough. Do you have an example?

They pack it very tightly in my experience. The packaging (cardboard) wraps very tightly against the books.

There were so many English speaking students while I was there. I wonder if it's unique to Grenoble.

What does this have to do with the submission?

The point of turning off the gas is to demonstrate the point that you can turn it off *or on*. That you have control over it.

Whats the point of turning off the gas as leverage if it *stays off*? That would be no leverage at all.

What I mean to say is that it doesn't matter to know who physically performed the actions, only to know who planned and directed it. Just like we might blame bin Laden for 9/11 even though he didn't fly the planes. He was on the other side of the earth. Or whatever, you get the idea.

But in any case, of course we don't know. But we should attempt to find what is and isn't a reasonable explanation, and what may be most reasonable.

Europe is sanctioning the hell out of Russia, and yet Gazprom would pay huge penalties on violating a contract. If anything this story shows why it's unlikely they blew up the pipeline. After that whole legalese theater, they just decided to turn off the tap. As simple as that. And just as simple to refuse to pay any fees.

Any serious opposition to Putin is actually more hawkish than he is. Not quite something that is covered often in our press. There is no neo Yeltsin lurking in the shadows.

Prevent negotiations between Russia and Germany particularly. Then sell exorbitantly priced US LNG to a captive Europe. All of which is basically happening now.

Pressure the market in what way that isn't accomplished by just turning the pipeline off without blowing it up?

And pressure Germany into what exactly? Think this one through. How does removing the possibility of re-opening the pipeline pressure Germany into anything from the point of view of the Russians?

What Russia would want to pressure Germany into is "stop your sanctions and we will sell you gas". A possibility removed by blowing up the pipeline.

The "Russia blew up the pipeline" idea makes absolutely no sense. And if there was any evidence to support it, you know that the whole of Western media would be shouting it from every rooftop.

But instead we have silence, and concerns over "national security"

I think it's unreasonable to believe that you could intentionally half-way blow up a pipeline. And the only reasonable conclusion here is that the intention was to blow all of it up.

Why would Russia want to even get out of those contracts? If Europe is willing to pay, they will gladly supply gas, as they have done for many many decades. Even at the peak of the cold war, they were reliably supplying gas to Western Germany for example. It is very lucrative for them. And in any case, why do contracts between Russia and Europe even matter at this point. Any party can just do whatever they want.

There is no point is "sending a message", it's very obvious that it is possible to blow up an underwater pipeline. Anyone worth sending a message to would have already known its possible.

The obvious real motivation here is to prevent any negotiation over re-opening the pipeline.

Ukrainians may have been involved, but the US would have been the necessary component, and the UK additionally would have been sufficient.

You don't think that the US and UK can jointly plan to do something without holding hands? It doesn't really matter who actually physically did it. What's important is who intended to it, which is probably both of them. Maybe nationals from other countries were involved (maybe Ukranians? Poles? Idk). But the US and UK would actually be planning/administering the operation.

It was the threat that it would be turned back on that is the reason that rules in US as a culprit. It was already not being used! Russia would blow it up to get out of some contract? Does that sound like a serious idea to you? Do any contracts even matter between Russia and Europe at this point.

Maybe you just weren't paying attention as much. They did talk extensively about it.

The US and UK in some form.

This has nothing to do with what they said. Completely irrelevant to the question at hand.

Not really the point of the comment above whether Musk has done some good things or not. Specifically, he has literally lied about what Tesla is able to do. That's why his number would come up. He has knowingly said things he knew to be untrue.

So then, should the useful heuristic include the US as well? By far, the most imprisoning country in the history of the Earth? Whose major technology companies have been clearly documented to be funneling user information to that same state's security services?

Your useful heuristic is that any Chinese idea in inherently bad?

I think a lot of those decisions were made to maximize easing existing JS code into typescript. And it probably helped with adoption. Who knows if or how much it would have struggled with traction if anyone wanting to use it would have to start from scratch or something like it.

Your second point is such a lost gem of history. I still remember it well and remember how upset it made me. But it seems the world has forgotten, and just assumes that Chrome just meteorically shot up in usage just on its merit.

Did you just update Java? Looks like a new browser you've never used is your default now.

Sorry, I meant specifically the "syntax" of your type is not TS. It's those object literal constructions you mention.

Agree with all of that, but also, it's been at quite a while since I used it. I'm sure it's improved a lot since then, and my memory might be off as well. I really remember not being able to get it to work with generics. But maybe I didn't read the docs deep enough.

We just do what you describe now, and don't even really want automated type checking. We just write our own assertion functions. The weakness of writing your own is that you have to sort of "manually" upgrade them when there type changes, or they drift and your editor won't tell you about it.

yeah. You have to assert an object (`Record<string, unknown>`) type first within your asserter (or array or whatever). We ended up having whole stacks of re-usable assertion functions to be used at these boundaries (re-usable on server side too if you're using node!)

It's a neat library, but you end up defining your types in an external (outside of TS) syntax, and you lose a lot of language-server features. Also, last I checked it could not handle generics. But it's been a while.

I really wanted this in my earlier usage of typescript as well.

But the solution really is to assume `: unknown` at API boundaries and run the values through assertion functions: `isSomeType(x: unknown): asserts x is SomeType`.

After using this sort of pattern, I don't think I would want automatic runtime checks anymore, because creating your own explicitly and calling it explicitly works out not so bad.