paradoja
paradoja on Hacker News
This is the "Pay or okay" model that some sites in Austria and Germany have (
https://noyb.eu/en/pay-or-okay-beginning-end and other updates from NOYB talk about the issue).
I've also seen a Spanish site with this, but as far as I know it has only been accepted by Austrian and German authorities (and challenged recently by some courts).
It'd be 2 characters no? `head x` vs `x!!0`.
Verifying that it works in Firefox in Linux (with Gnome and with Sway, in case that matters). Thanks a lot for this!
If GDPR is a concern, it has to be opt-in, so it wouldn't be compliant in any case.
> The "--force" / legacy option can't tell a difference between "broken solution that will work for you" and "broken solution which won't".
But probably it doesn't have to. "--force" implies that the user wants to go on and manage the consequences of what happens. Typing it requires actively adding that flag, which is a conscious decision on the part of the user. If the user wants to check by themselves if it works or not, that could be their prerogative.
In the Spanish-speaking world you can find the endings -e, -@, and -x. Depending on the area/organization one or other can be used (also, differing ways of pronouncing them; I'm a native and barely have heard any one pronounce the -e versions ever).
This seems to ignore the Snowden revelations. I don't think most of the world trusts US companies qualitatively more than they trust Chinese companies for these kinds of apps.
Also, the discussion was about national security and you are giving different arguments here. How is this related to national security?
I'd think that it's cheaper not because it's risky (specially since Amazon says it inspects the item), but because it's second hand. Trying to pass the risk to the user is probably not what most people would expect.
What is your source on this? This opinion seems to be against what experts continue saying.
Well, that's not a defining characteristic of English but of most (all?) living, dynamic languages. I have seen it with the languages I speak or have tried to learn (Spanish, German, Portuguese, Chinese...).
Having a German (as parent poster) and Spanish phone for many years, I have never had a robocall. It's really surprising to me that this is a problem at all.
This is true for quite some studies for bike commuters. The risk of accident is probably higher than getting public transport or walking (I don't know with respect to using a car; but that's less common in most places here in Europe), but the improved health conditions are worth it on average.
Maybe only the ones they had an easy excuse to remove?
Handlers are already ignoring the caution signs, though, just not for (at least) one product, TVs.
It is my impression that corruption measures usually indicate corruption available or actively done by normal people without power (eg. bribing officers to get licenses or similar things).
Corruption by big corporations and similar things is usually another thing (although if things are corrupt in the low level, they will for sure be in the higher levels).
I guess the problems started much earlier, and that court decision was actually a result of such issues.
I don't think I agree with the grandparent, but usually swing voters don't change their political views, but rather political parties adapt their programs (or rather, propaganda) to appeal to them. So I don't think that's a good example.
It's like QuickCheck, but instead of testing random values, it tests all values in a certain range.
For example, if the function takes an array of 128 bit values, it's test all the possible arrays of length 0, 1, 2... up to the length you want to test for.
(Actually, not necessarily all, but all that an exhaustive generator generates; the generator would normally go through all values, but it potentially could only test some values, but would not select them at random).
There's a comment by Fabio Fracassi (
http://preshing.com/20141202/cpp-has-become-more-pythonic/#I... ), member of the German delegation for the ISO C++ committee, contending that view. At roughly the same time that Python has been getting this features, many other languages have also been getting them, and usually without crediting Python influence (but rather other languages').
There are other bubbling wines that are not called "champagne".
Marx was about something else, mostly. You should probably read a bit more of (or on) him.
In that there is no way to argue that the artist lost sales due to the copies, thus, no harm made.
I guess: -2 % 6 = -2, but -2 %% 6 = 4.
Just add 0 in front of the second sum. 0 + x = x, so it is the same.
You explicitly said "Communism in the formal sense". You were wrong with that.
Most ideologies and political or economic ideas have had their names subverted to mean something different by opponents (democracy, republicanism, communism, anarchism, capitalism...). That doesn't mean that if you speak in the "formal sense" you can decide to use whatever meaning you prefer.
Nope.
The dictatorship of the proletariat is not communism. Not even for Marx. It is the state before communism, in which the proletariat makes changes in society so that communism may take place.
What? Do you have reading skills?
The message you are answering to doesn't take a political position, it just says that the previous one has some facts wrong.
That said, I don't think you're either pro-eastern bloc or not. There are many political opinions one can have, and many aren't easily divided into pro-eastern bloc or not.