lad

Chernobyl

But that was a really old tech, the plants built after 1990s shouldn’t allow this scale of pollution even if all the stops are pulled and everything breaks in the worst way possible

This is the ideal rendition, I would say. On a related note, I just love it when there are backspaces in my filenames

There are many regexes that validate email, and they usually aren’t compliant with the RFC, there are some details in the very old answer on SO. So, better not validate and just send a confirmation, than restrict and lock people out, imo

and which of these two you are going to get paid more for

It looks like exactly 4 characters are missing, so public and static would fit, but I never saw static instead of public static, so I think you’re right. On the other hand, I don’t use Java anymore and couldn’t be bothered about such details

Depends on what was the course about. If it’s about computation, then sure. If it’s about OOP or architecture design (this one I wouldn’t expect, unfortunately, but would be nice if it was taught somewhere), then the point is not just to run something.

I mostly come to prefer composition, this approach apparently even has a wiki page. But that’s in part because I use Rust that forbids inheritance, and don’t have such bullshit (from delegation wiki page):

class A {
    void foo() {
        // "this" also known under the names "current", "me" and "self" in other languages
        this.bar();
    }

    void bar() {
        print("a.bar");
    }
}

class B {
    private delegate A a; // delegation link

    public B(A a) {
        this.a = a;
    }

    void foo() {
        a.foo(); // call foo() on the a-instance
    }

    void bar() {
        print("b.bar");
    }
}

a = new A();
b = new B(a); // establish delegation between two objects

Calling b.foo() will result in b.bar being printed, since this refers to the original receiver object, b, within the context of a. The resulting ambiguity of this is referred to as object schizophrenia

Translating the implicit this into an explicit parameter, the call (in B, with a a delegate) a.foo() translates to A.foo(b), using the type of a for method resolution, but the delegating object b for the this argument.

Why would one substitute b as this when called from b.a is beyond me, seriously.

Even if it is not their fault, what people see is that they provide bad quality service. Very low percentage ofthem will care to read details when Netflix publishes a post-mortem of an issue, assuming they even do.

I feel like ‘a half is one-third more than a third’ is ambiguous and same as in ‘X is N% more than Y’ one may use X or Y as 100%

I’m sure that one interpretation is more common, but I don’t think that it is exclusively correct

If he does, how will you feel about selling out Palestinians?

I will feel same as now, so don’t worry

So, you admit that not voting for Dems you vote Trump, but you just think that it’s no big deal, because last time he failed to break everything he touched?

Edit: it’s a pity there’s no travelling to alternative timelines, I’d really love to see what Trump’s victory would lead to, but wouldn’t want to live in that reality.

will be ignoring further off-topic replies.

You failed a bit

The best situation for not losing the message would actually be a Harris loss and where various pundits and orgs push the message that it was due to support for genocide

That would maybe work if there were test elections and then the real deal a little after. Having a dicktator for the next 4 years (minimum) is a bit too much to send the message. It is just cutting off your nose to spite your face.

saying that the British should inherit it is a very weak argument

Yes, I am not making that argument, inheritors mush be at least somewhat related.

Although, in case you’re talking about, the indigenous people’s artifacts will likely end up in the country of their conquerors and oppressors, which is also a shame

It’s not an empire if you call it a federation /s

This is reasonable, but what if the culture that created the artifacts already went extinct like Maya? Besides, we’re not only talking about how it shouldn’t have been done in the past, but also about what to do today with that past.

It’s easy to say that everything bad of today is only because of wrongdoings of yesterday, but it is not useful and usually is only used as propaganda for something that has no justification except for the past being bad.

Edit: although, now that I think about it, coming from this viewpoint, that past is past and we should care about present, it’s clear that you’re right. If the culture bearer (or the inheritor, but this is grey zone for me) wants to destroy what is rightfully theirs, so be it. There is a bit of an issue with making those decisions by all eligible people, not a couple of extremists, though. Well, I think I found the contradiction that I had in me

As far, as I know, there are many cases of not returning on the ground of owners not having conditions to preserve.

But thanks for replying at least, I was hoping to see opposing opinions to try to understand what am I missing, not just ‘stealing bad’ downvotes

Oh, I didn’t know that, neat. Then there’s no space for nit-picking

Yes, but it still is about language, not game engine.

Albeit technically, the statement is correct, since it is more specific.