You could have support for this thing in the board's software, but I don't think it's common. So normally, where a post will have at least a header, sometimes also a footer, multiple posts means duplicated data on screen. Pretty minor though.
I think it fragments the workflow a bit because normally you can just quote a block and easily interject your replies + add more quote syntax. If it were multiple posts you'd need to repeat certain steps each time. Personally I want to minimize switches between keyboard and mouse. On mobile it's more even.
I see both styles here and there. It might be too much if multiple posts were the norm but when it's occasional it really doesn't matter to me. I'd rather you do what feels natural.
We've been writing this way for 100 years or more. It's called headlinese. When you see "slammed" you're supposed to think, "Ah, slammed. A short word indicating strong disagreement."
Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headline#Headlinese
But then again, we're more sensitive towards media control and all that. More understanding of how slant does things to people.
S. Korean government is the woman before ~20 seconds, N. Korean government is the woman after that point, and I guess regular citizens are like the people in the diner.
Fighting is one thing, poop is another.
You use lifetimes to annotate parameters and return values in order to tell the compiler about how long things must last for your function to be valid. You can link a specific input with the output, or explicitly separate them. If you don't give lifetimes the language uses some basic rules to do it for you. If it can't, eg it's ambiguous, then it's a compile error and you need to do it manually.
It's one of the harder concepts of rust to explain succinctly. But imagine you had a function that took strA and strB, used strB to find a subsection of strA, and then return a slice of strA. That slice is tied to strA. You would use 'a annotation for strA and the return value, and 'b for strB.
Rust compiler will detect the lifetime being shorter than expected.
Also, ownership semantics. Think c++ move semantics. Only one person is left with a good value, the previous owners just have garbage data they can't use anymore. If you created a thing on the heap and then gave it away, you wouldn't have it anymore to free at the end. If you want to have "multiple owners" then you need ref counting and such, which also stops this problem of premature freeing.
Edit: one more thing: reference rules. You can have many read-only references to a thing, or one mutable reference. Unless you're doing crazy things, the compiler simply won't let you have references to a thing, and then via one of those references free that thing, thereby invalidating the other references.
I'll have to check the leaderboards but this might be the most money ever raised by a convicted president.
...
Yep! Number one!
I'm currently watching the Trump presser the day after, and he's straight up violating his gag order, spending awhile talking about Cohen, basically saying "I can't talk about him, but his name rhymes with Mohen, they call him a fixer, and ..." The whole thing is nuts but just thought that was a bit special.
So just to be clear, nobody is denying Snowden is a Kremlin mouthpiece. It's just a faux pas to imply Snowden is not a virtuous person? Or is it mean to group Snowden, a Russian stooge, with other Russian stooges, because of his past?
Russia bad, surveillance bad, this has been your daily propaganda leaflet ~~
Pick one:
a) Snowden haphazardly leaked our documents because he can't abide mass surveillance. He had to do it and risk everything because of his moral convictions.
b) Snowden repeats Putin's propaganda because his safety is more important than doing the right thing. He can abide things like the invasion of Ukraine or interference in American politics in favor of practical concerns.
(You know it's possible for Snowden to have done something good while also being a shithead, right? I'm saying these shitheads can keep each other company.)
Maybe he and Snowden can brainstorm ideas on how best to pretend to have strong moral convictions backing your actions while simultaneously being a mouthpiece for Putin. It can't be easy to pretend to be a person willing to risk it all, get to Russia, and suddenly fall in line.
Reading the report makes me feel like I'm from a different planet.
It clearly spells out Israel blocking aid to Gaza. It describes what we all would call blocking aid. If someone did what Israel does, to you, you would call it blocking. Israel blocks aid and the report makes it plain.
Just because they have a different definition of "blocking aid" doesn't mean the report cleared Israel. I don't get it. Can you really just say whatever you want, end it with "but it's not what it sounds like" and that's the takeaway everyone gets?
It's one thing for a document to have arbitrary restrictions on what it can say. That happens. It's another for people to take it so literally.
Edit: I don't even know what definitions they were working with, I just got a "it's not technically..." vibe. But I do know that the report describes blocking aid.
Not going to X (or any wrappers) but I'm curious what "supported games" means. Because I would expect that it's actually "games that support timeline markers" like how they integrate rich presence. Devs could just use a new header and implement this nifty feature.
I'm someone who grew up on Windows but switched to Linux and holy shit was it so much nicer. I don't know if Windows massively improved or if people are just incapable of comparing something new with something they already know. Because Windows is hard.
99/100 basic users need someone to unfuck their windows install after what, one, two years?
Every time you need to do something non standard you're basically going from training wheels to "good luck, deputy sysadmin."
Broken registry. Orphaned cruft.
Malware, spyware.
It's a lot of work making stuff up just to have your spiritual alcohol.
I think 20 of the world's best drivers should almost always equal good racing. Something must be wrong if that isn't true. Change the tracks, the cars, the regulations, the expectations of fans... is this a controversial idea?
Because I get how current F1 can have bad races. It all makes sense when you think about the big picture. The closeness of margins, the tires, the dirty air, safety. But if you step back it starts to feel absurd. If we're going to believe that these guys are the best then we have to believe that they're being wasted.
Nearly all guns will have a legal upstream source, so it stands to reason that taxes can directly impact people selling guns used in crimes, indirectly impacts those who sell them under the table, extracts money from gun owners who as a class aren't being as responsible as they should, and fundamentally reduces the amount of guns in circulation.
I don't see a negative. It's foss so you ought to be relaxed about others using your code. The issues are probably just articulating problems that were already there. If it's stuff you don't care about... it's a foss repository so you just ignore it.
Looks like a lava shader material preview but instead of a ball they used something food shaped.
I've been distracted by Kmag stuff, does Haas have good tire deg yet? I assume Hulk will be on his own this race
Maybe I'm hallucinating because I can't find it, but I swear there was a Nietzsche bit about "It is a weak man who walks around in armor." In this case it's literal armor.