Watch me: My void* doesn’t give a shit about your const!

I have to be honest in that, while I think duck typing should be embraced, I have a hard time seeing how people are actually able to deal with large-scale pure Python projects, just because of the dynamic typing. To me, it makes reading code so much more difficult when I can’t just look at a function and immediately see the types involved.

Because of this, I also have a small hangup with examples in some C++ libraries that use auto. Like sure, I’m happy to use auto when writing code, but when reading an example I would very much like to immediately be able to know what the return type of a function is. In general, I think the use of auto should be restricted to cases where it increases readability, and not used as a lazy way out of writing out the types, which I think is one of the benefits of C++ vs. Python in large projects.

Removed by mod

(…) what you said can be construed as offensive.

So what? You have a personal responsibility for being offended. It’s not everybody else’s job to walk on eggshells to avoid offending you. If you go looking for things people have said that can offend you, you’re gonna have a shitty time.

Try making an effort to interpret people in the best possible way, and you’ll have a much better time, with much fewer people being perceived as “going after you”.

Using the wrong filament isn’t Darwin Award worthy. Test firing a newly manufactured weapon with your hand is. And that would be true even if this wasn’t an experimental home-made design…

I definitely think the ramping up is going far too slowly, and as such it isn’t strange that there are shortages.

This is a huge war- the largest land war since WWII. All of NATO is still operating on a peace-time economy, so ramping up production to the levels required to support a 500 k - 1 mill. strong army like the Ukrainians is taking far too long.

However, as far as I can tell, production in Europe is only heading one way: Up. Not only that, Russia is operating in a war economy, which is, more or less by definition, unsustainable in the long run. Europe has the economic capacity to double its production, and maintain it indefinitely. I just think we should prioritise more heavily, and scale up more quickly.

The amount of people I’ve been helping out that have copied some code from somewhere and say “it doesn’t work”, and who are dumbfounded when I ask them to read the surrounding text aloud for me…

Along the same line: When something crashes, and all I have to do is tell people to read the error message aloud, and ask them what that means. It’s like so many people expect to be spoon-fed solutions, to the point where they don’t even stop to think about the problem if something doesn’t immediately work.

It seems to me like most European countries see supplying equipment to destroy the Russian army in Ukraine as preferable to destroying the Russian army on their own soil. Although I do hope Germany picks up the pace rather than reduces it.

However, even without Germany, there are plenty of other European countries that will be capable of buying truckloads of equipment from German manufacturers.

While I do agree with most of what is said here, I have a hangup on one of the points: Thinking that “docstrings and variable names” are a trustworthy way to indicate types. Python is not a statically typed language - never will be. You can have as much type hinting as you want, but you will never have a guarantee that some variable holds the type you think it does, short of checking the type at runtime. Also, code logic can change over time, and there is no guarantee that comments, docstrings and variable names will always be up to date.

By all means, having good docstrings, variable names, and type hinting is important, but none of them should be treated as some kind of silver bullet that gets you around the fact that I can access __globals__ at any time and change any variable to whatever I want if I’m so inclined.

This doesn’t have to be a bad thing though. I use both Python and C++ daily, and think that the proper way to use Python is to fully embrace duck typing. However that also means my code should be written in such a way that it will work as long as whatever input to it conforms loosely to whatever type I’m expecting to receive.

There have been major investments in the European military industry the past years. Europe is ramping up its production. With new factories in place, it makes no sense for Europe to start cutting down on production- that would mean huge sums have been spent to build factories that aren’t used.

Also, a bunch of countries have already paid for huge orders of equipment that will keep flowing for the next several years. Even if no new investments are made, there will be a substantial flow of weapons from European manufacturers.

That’s not even mentioning that Europe has finally understood that we need to be able to stand on our own feet militarily, because we can’t trust that the US will actually honor the NATO pact if shit hits the fan.

Accounting for purchasing power parity, the US economy is about 1.1x the size of the EU, and the population of the EU is about 1.5x that of the US. So it’s not like Europe doesn’t have the capacity to massively scale up its military power.

Remember that up until 80 years ago, the European militaries were by far the most powerful in the world.

That’s a lot like how other NATO countries operate as well. But my impression was that the American national guard units were professional full-time units, is that not the case?

Out Norwegian equivalent (the Home Guard) consists of civilians (i.e. people with normal jobs) that train a number of times a year, some of which have their equipment at home so that they’re ready to deploy on short notice. They have some coordinated training with the army, and are intended to function as a kind of “local force” in their region, with in-depth knowledge about local conditions that the ordinary army doesn’t have.

I can’t speak for everyone, but I believe the peace time professional militaries of most democratic European countries would be dwarfed by the number of people those countries would be able to mobilise in a war time situation.

In the case of Norway, we have a standing army of some 20-30 k soldiers, with a reserve (i.e. peace time civilians with ordinary jobs that have pre-set places to meet up in the case of a conflict) of some 50-70 k soldiers. If shit hits the fan, I wouldn’t be surprised if you could get another 100-200 k to volunteer (at the peak of the cold war I believe we had standing army + reserve of some 500 k). The issue is that we are nowhere close to being able to equip that many soldiers.

That’s just Norway, one of the smallest populations in Europe, and we would likely be able to field 100 k + soldiers within a week or two, with another 100 k following up in the next months, given that we have the equipment for it.

Call me naive, but I honestly believe that people in democratic countries would be willing to enlist if there is a real threat of an autocratic regime invading at taking over. Given that we have sufficient numbers of well trained soldiers to hold out the initial weeks/months and train those mobilised, and sufficient equipment to give the mobilised, I hope that we would be able to put a solid force on its feet relatively quickly.

Also, just the sheer population of Europe (≈ 450 million in the EU) is so much larger that e.g. Russia (≈ 150 million) that we should collectively be able to field several million soldiers as long as we have enough equipment for it, and enough trained personell to train the mobilised. So I definitely think it’s reasonable to focus on building equipment stockpiles in peace time, rather than having huge standing armies.

I used Iran as an example because they specifically have a religious leadership that uses exactly the Quran to justify their laws.

There are plenty of non-Muslim Iranians that have burned Qurans in anti-regime protests, specifically to separate the religious regime (symbolised by the Quran in that context) from the country and its culture as a whole. That is: They are specifically protesting the religious regime, and therefore don’t burn the flag, which they don’t associate with the regime.

I would elaborate a bit more, and I think you have a good analogy with “burning a cross in a black family’s yard”.

Just like burning a cross to protest the church is different from burning it in someone’s yard to threaten them, burning a Quran in the context of protesting against (for example) the Iranian regime is different from burning the same Quran while simultaneously encouraging violence towards Muslims.

If my understanding is correct he isn’t being punished for the Quran burning alone. It’s what he’s been saying while also burning the Quran.

A more similar example would be burning a flag while saying something along the lines of “All immigrants from X country are terrible people and we should use all possible means to force them out of the country”, with a strong “won’t someone rid me of this troublesome priest” connotation.

Essentially, burning a symbol would be ok in an isolated sense. Inciting hatred and violence, and using the burning of symbols to aid you in delivering that message is not.

Wow, you really must be an actual idiot. I’m honestly kind of impressed.

Being a phd. myself, I would say it seems likely that the person in question wasn’t aware of the research/sweeps that had been done, and was searching through literature with the express purpose of finding out what kind of work had been done on the subject, when they came across this data.

The way I usually find out about a research campaign is by reading articles from said campaign. It’s very rare that I’ll need to reach out to the authors to ask for more data than what is available in their publications.

If there’s any American reading this: Please vote. The world needs you and all your friends to vote. I’m begging you, please get out and vote.

I didn’t say that. I’m pointing out that we spent shitloads of money that could have gone to out own schools and healthcare, and a dozens of young soldiers lives (I’m not American), and we were clearly told by both the local population and a bunch of other countries to fuck off.

So yes. I’ll say it. Fuck em. We don’t owe them shit. We came down there, suppressed the Taliban, built s schools and hospitals, and secured elections, and when we left, the Afghan army, which we had trained and supplied, folded immediately.

We can’t be held responsible for them not revolting against a suppressive regime. We gave them all the tools to keep the taliban out, but they chose to fold. That’s on them.

It’s tragic, but that’s how it is. If they’re not willing to fight for their own rights, they won’t get to enjoy them.

I’ve heard this explanation before as well, that essentially nobody felt any loyalty to the national government. You could kind of tell why when the whole government just evacuated the country when the west left.