All of my EU friends living in the UK have now applied for citizenship.
The risk profile for "I have indefinite leave to remain" has moved from "this won't be an issue at all" to "we have no trust in the government on this" in a few short years.
I really cannot understand why people who are permanently settled in a country would not apply for citizenship.
It is not a matter of trust. Unless you are a citizen your right to remain in a country is always subject to the approval of the government and rules can change. it is the point of the distinction between "indefinite leave to remain" and citizenship.
> I have noticed that only white people commit to living in the UK without becoming citizens.
Alas, you've not discovered a hidden pattern, except maybe a hidden pattern in the kinds of people you socialize with. Chinese nationals cannot hold dual citizenship, and renouncing their Chinese citizenship creates very serious complications, including around property and inheritance when parents die, which you would be aware of if you knew any Chinese person well enough to have had this conversation with them.
Based on gov.uk immigration system statistics data and tables, among those with indefinite leave to remain, the most likely to seek citizenship are British Overseas Citizens, Austrians and Lithuanians. The least likely are Moroccans and Venezuelans.
Weird in the Venezuelans case, as there is no restrictions for double nationality and having only Venezuelan citizenship doesn't have many advantages. I would guess that it is because most Venezuelans living there already have an European passport due to parents/grandparent, so no need/can't get a third
Cannot only if the other European country does not allow dual nationality.
If they are permanently settled in the UK surely it would be better to have British citizenship rather than that of a country they do not live in?
The nationalities listed are all very small groups in the UK. maybe they are not really permanently settled? Someone who moves somewhere for work might end up living there a decade (and in the UK that would mean getting indefinite leave to remain) and then returning.
I admit not knowing a lot of Chinese nationals, but I do know a very wide range of people. Of course, issues with property and inheritance only apply to people who have sufficient for it to be a major issue.
Could you link to the stats showing that? What about all the other countries? What is the position of BNOs?
Indefinite leave to remain is not the same as permanently settled - there is a difference between long term and the rest of your life.
Apart from the fact that some countries don't allow dual citizenships so you would loose the other one:
- cost: ~2k
- time: 2 exams
- paperwork required to keep other nationalities in some cases
- after feb 2026, you can only re-enter the UK with a British passport (more cost) or with extra paperwork to enable your other passport (more costs ~500)
Countries that do not allow dual citizenship is a good reason, and maybe the cost and paperwork required by other countries (although, unless you really cannot afford it its worth getting it to cover yourself in case rules change). I did it myself.
The same goes for the cost of British citizenship. once you have it its just the cost of renewing passports (about £100/decade at current rates) for the rest of your life. That £2,000 is much less than the cost of renewing some types or residence visa and gives you the security of being a citizen.
Some countries don't allow dual citizenship, which means you'd no longer be a citizen of your country of origin, you know, where your family might live.
I have plenty of friends who otherwise would apply, and ILR should be sufficient in a democratic government following social and political contracts.
Yes: Austria and Slovakia still do, possibly others as well. And Germany only stopped preventing it within the last year or two.
The UK will help circumvent this for current British citizens when they acquire new citizenship in one of those countries (eg. America famously makes you hand over your old passport, but the UK will happily ship you a replacement in an unmarked envelope), but that doesn't really work so well in the other direction.
this was true until a few years ago for Italy and France too, getting one nationality would instantly lose you the other. I think this isn't true anymore, but I do have a friend who lived in the country for decades and never picked up the nationality because of this.
> Treating python as a project level dependency rather than a system level dependency
Nobody is treating Python as a project level dependency. Your Linux distro treats it as a system level dependency, which is exactly why you encountered the problem you did.
When you create a virtual environment, that does not install a Python version. It just makes symlinks to a base Python.
Building Python from source, and setting it up in a way that doesn't interfere with the package manager's space and will cause no problems, is easy on major distros. I have access to over a dozen builds right now, on Mint which is not exactly a "power user" distro (I didn't want to think about it too much when I initially switched from Windows).
One place I would love to visit is the Tower of Hercules which was built in the first century and based on the original plans of the Lighthouse of Alexandria.
It was mentioned pretty deep in another thread, but this is just straight up user hostile
variable "my_list" { default = ["a", "b"] }
resource whatever something {
for_each = var.my_list
}
The given "for_each" argument value is unsuitable: the "for_each" argument must be a map, or set of strings, and you have provided a value of type tuple.
This is what you get if you want a declarative syntax. HCL doesn't have any concept of a for loop, and can't have any concept of a for loop— it's a data serialization format. Terraform can be transformed to and from JSON losslessly. The looping feature is implemented in Terraform.
Ansible's with_items: and loop: do the exact same thing with YAML.
The concept of repeated operations executing with respect to some condition is always going to be a bit different in declarative / functional constructs than in imperative ones. A purely functional language is never going to have the equivalent of: for (...) a++;
Good functional languages like Clojure make something like this awkward and painful to do, because it doesn't really make sense in a functional context.
I think you missed the error message; I wasn't whining about for_each syntax masquerading as if it was a property of the resource, I was pointing out the moronic behavior of attempting to iterate over a list of strings and being given the finger
It is claiming the provided thing is not a set of strings it's a tuple
The fix is
for_each = toset(var.my_list)
but who in their right mind would say "oh, I see you have a list of things, but I only accept unordered things"
It's not about them being ordered it's about them being unique. You're generating a resource for each element and that resource has a unique name. The stackoverflow way to iterate over a list is to use toset() but more often what people want is
zipmap(range(length(var.my_list)), var.my_list)
where you get {0 => item, 1=>item} and your resources will be named .0, .1, .2. I get the annoyance about the type naming but in HCL lists and tuples are the same thing.
I'm confused by your question, lists don't enforce uniqueness—you can do ["a", "a"] and it's perfectly valid. Sets and the key values of hash maps can't have repeating elements. You can for_each over lists that come from a data block so you can't statically know if a list is effectively a set.
If you don't want .0, .1 then you agree with Terraform's design because that's the only way you could for_each over an arbitrary list that might contain duplicate values. Terraform making you turn your lists into sets gets you what you want.
I just tell people to avoid writing loops in Terraform if it could be at all avoided. And if you iterate make sure it’s a keyed dictionary instead of array/list like data structure
i'm not particularly fond of sweets in my adult life but in my child years it was something i loved. i don't know why anyone would think a child wouldn't like a sweet ball of treat
That seems terribly unfair to marshmallows. Smores, lucky charms, rice krispies treat/bubble slice, and hot chocolate wouldn't be the same without them.
On a more serious note, given that a triple-digit number of employees have taken buyouts over Matt's behavior, it must really suck to be one of the employees who now has to do other people's jobs in addition to their own.
If I worked for Automattic, I'd take a buyout even if I didn't object to Matt's behavior, just because I know how much it always sucks to be one of the employees stuck at a company after a walkout or a layoff.
To be fair, it's not accurate to assume or even imply they left because of Matt's behaviour. As even you go on to say, the incentive to leave - full stop - was there. Why not take advantage of the opportunity?
The whole "but once you leave there will be a Scarlett Letter on your HR folder's head (i.e., you will never be allowed back)" just sounded silly. Who knew Matt was a Taylor Swift fan?
The risk profile for "I have indefinite leave to remain" has moved from "this won't be an issue at all" to "we have no trust in the government on this" in a few short years.
Profoundly depressing