Well I think we can pretty much guess what answers you’ll find at lemmygrad and hexbear.

Not more wrong or more right. Just a different lens of analysis.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Some context, which I’m sure will be downvoted because we don’t like chat control.

The Danes currently hold the rotating presidency for the council. As such they are required to be the architects of the council position, good initiatives and bad.

The EU holds countries that are against government access to chat services and countries that believe access should be routine and warrant-free.

The Danish “architect of chat control” is thus required, by EU law, to define a compromise position and see if that can be voted through in the council.

The compromise position is a combination of “scanning at source” using both known fingerprints and AI, with a warrant based access process for police sources.

As a compromise position that’s possible passable in parliament and council.

I personally think the whole thing the entire thing is unworkable in practice. But the Danes are getting involved because they have to.

That was the foundational concept in powershell; everything is an object. They then went a ruined it with insane syntax and a somewhat logical, but entirely in practiceimpractical verb-noun command structure.

Nushell is powershell for humans. And helps that it runs across all systems. It’s one of the first things I install.

Yes I actually agree. Moss is definitely the butt of some jokes, but he gets so much love in other places that I can stomach it, despite feeling like the show isn’t always completely kind to him.

Yes, I agree.

But I think you need to see it in the larger context. Episode 1, and much of season 1 (series 1 as we would call it here in the UK), is about moving into their world so we get to known them and appreciate them. Jen is the viewers’ guide into this world and her journey towards becoming one of them is the viewer’s journey. So what starts as a laugh at geeks ends up sympathising with the geeks (“but we did all the work!!”) and becoming the geeks (observe how Jen’s office starts as a managers office but slowly ends up with Manga artwork).

So her laughing at the geeks, and her inability to understand them (white noise), is crucial because it takes the viewer’s hand and leads them into the basement.

The most powerful example of this journey is when Jen becomes entertainment manager (“It’s not for you!”) and we have one of the show’s genuinely touching moments , whwn Roy grapples with his breakup and finds release in a session of tabletop RPG. This moment works so well because of the strength of the actors, the script and the fact that it has brought the viewer into the circle; the normies are now loud, obnoxious “business men” who are set free by adopting geekiness.

Well let’s start with the jokes. They are just subjectively funnier, with many tie-backs and connections (Seinfeld/CYE long running set ups).

TITC is laughing at the normies and celebrating the geeks. TITC isn’t afraid to be really funny, which means recognising the human condition and laughing with it. The characters aren’t “good people who fail”, they are “humans who fail”, which mean we recognise them and empathise with them. Who hasn’t wanted to give a really impressive speech and said some bullshit.

BBT is bland. The characters are bland, with only external failures. The jokes dare not really poke fun at anyone and the jokes are sentence-long. Finally the actors and the script just aren’t as out there, so it all just feels dull as dishwater.

All episodes had live audience. Doesn’t mean all the laughter is real laughter, though, but there was definitely a live audience.

Comparing The IT Crowd to The Big Bang Theory is like comparing Pavarotti to a braying lamb.

BBT is the braying lamb, for the avoidance of doubt.

deleted by creator

Ahh, it’s not an issue about SQLite but about whether the right libraries are bundled by Godot. Got it, that explains it.

Correlation is not causation.

I’m confused about your SQLite troubles … it compiles for pretty much everything - as long as you have a file system mapping.

I literally started my comment off by acknowledging that she might have seen cluster munitions but downvote away.

Cluster munitions has a clear definition. It acquired a clear definition when the treaty was drafted. Cluster munitions release a … cluster (group) of smaller munitions that themselves explode on impact:

conventional munition that is designed to disperse or release explosive submunitions each weighing less than 20 kilograms, and includes those explosive submunitions. Submunition is a conventional munition that in order to perform its task is dispersed or released by a cluster munition and is designed to function by detonating an explosive charge prior to, on or after impact.”

Fragmentation munitions break apart and the fragments cause death and destruction.

If someone claims that she’s seen cluster munitions that were outlawed, she’s claiming to have seen cluster munitions that were outlawed, not fragmentation munitions. We may not like either, I certainly don’t, but one type is out of use in signatory countries and another type is not.

The picture she’s used it’s actually not even munitions, it’s fuzes, ie the thing that makes munitions detonate.

And in full detail, cluster munitions are still “legal” in signatory countries, provided the submunitions self-detonate after a time. The Oslo treaty was designed to prevent civilians, children especially, picking up unexploded submunitions. It wasn’t designed to prevent death and destruction in a military target.

She may have seen cluster munitions at the fare.

But that picture shows an 84 mm combined impact/time fuze for a M-84 Carl Gustav recoilless rifle round and an 81 mm fuze tip for a 81 mm mortar round. The timed fuze is quite nasty - you set it for distance (by flight time) with a view to have it detonate above or to the side of infantry under cover.

Neither if these are cluster munitions, however. I’ve used both back in my army days.

So if that picture is her proof she’s at best misguided.

I can’t wait to get downvoted for facts.

Coming up to 20 years, 17 years married.

If they have data, that they’ve looked at, then fucking publish the data. It’s such a weasel statement to say “we’ve looked at the data”. Well, if it stands up to inspection, publish it!

I worked for Microsoft for 12 years. Now I’m in a fully remote business and I’ve got better relationships and stronger results being fully remote than we ever did in person.

The amount of connectors I’ve sat on in Microsoft. Ugh.

Because whatever Microsoft does makes the news. It’ll be leaked anyway even if they tried to keep it internal. They might as well get on the front foot and publish it. Besides, it sends a signal that their intentions can withstand the light of inspection.