Zagorath

I'm imagining something like this:

def add_member(group, user):
    if (len(group.members) <= GROUP_CHAT_LIMIT):
        ...

If GROUP_CHAT_LIMIT is 8 bits, this does not work.

I think the issue is that Bob is severely understating the extent of the problems with the licence as it currently is. He's putting a lot of faith in DP to act in good faith and suggesting that having this good faith is a reason to be against making the licence put in black-and-white the terms of that good faith.

Bob also goes to a lot of effort to personally attack the people who are trying to encourage DP to do better. Claiming that they're just stirring up drama, all while he is himself stirring up drama in comparison to their attempts to discuss the actual issues. Play the ball, not the man, as they say.

In much simpler terms:

Think of an IP address like a street address. 192 My Street.

There might be multiple businesses at one street address. In real life we address them with things like 1/192 My Street and 2/192 My Street, but there's no direct parallel to that in computer networks. Instead, what we do is more like directing your letter to say "Business A c/o 192 My Street". That's what SNI does.

Because we have to write all of that on the outside of the envelope, everyone gets to see that we're communicating with Business A. But what if one of the businesses at 192 My Street is highly sensitive and we'd rather people didn't know we were communicating with them? @bjoern_[email protected]'s proposal is basically like if you put the "Business A" part inside the envelope, so the mailman (and anyone who sees the letter on the way) only see that it's going to 192 My Street. Then the front room at that address could open the envelope and see that the ultimate destination is Business A, and pass it along to them.

Yeah every 10 years would be good even if you assume they did learn everything correctly the first time and don't forget anything, just to make sure people are keeping up with changes in the law. I regularly still see people loudly sharing interpretations of the law on social media that haven't been true for a decade. And then speed it up to every 5 years after 65 to additionally account for senescence.

Life expectancy is a useless metric for this purpose. Maybe it would be more useful if you used "life expectancy at age 10" (so after any childhood illnesses), but even then it doesn't really say anything about what the process senescence looks like.

obligatory NJB

Real-zero is definitely a real thing. It's not a particularly complicated or sophisticated thing, but it is real. All it means is zero carbon emissions. Not some emissions that you then offset by purchasing shady "carbon offsets".

Climate Integrity, whose reporting this article is based on, seems fairly legit, going through their history. Here's an release of theirs fact checking gas industry lies about gas cooking vs electric.

Not 100% sure I remember correctly, but I think the "BCC" part might be waist height, with the whole thing being taller than me.

It's quite close to a creek, there are a few big manholes around the area clearly above some sort of water, and I think all those padlocks are doing is blocking off access to the hollow inside of the pole, so you could be onto something .

Oh? Why not? I thought it was a good article.

Damn has it really been three years?

Only 2.

unless this path is made absolutely impossible

That's the problem though. Taiwan clearly does not want reunification. Peaceful or otherwise. Younger generations are increasingly in favour of either status quo (de facto independence without any official declaration) or even explicit official independence. And the increasingly aggressive rhetoric and actions from China are only pushing the Taiwanese more in that direction. Consider: in 2018 support for moving towards unification was at its highest in over 15 years, but then China's human rights abuses in Hong Kong, and more recently its aggressive military drills in and near Taiwanese airspace and waters have driven that down to an all-time low.

So realistically, there are only two paths to unification. Through China doing a complete 180 on its foreign policy posture and showing it can sustain that reversal in the long term, as well as showing it can respect human rights. Or, through force.

Yes, BCC is definitely Brisbane City Council.

Call it, no. But I did search for it. Nothing specific came up, but I did learn that "3403 8888" is BCC's normal contact number, and several other 3403 numbers point to specific BCC employees. So I'm thinking 3403 numbers in general probably belong to BCC.

Nor on Jerboa. But lemmy-ui (the default web UI) does it.