In this scenario your VPNs would still need to find a ISP that would let them route packets out of that country. This means that instead of a legit VPN company you have to deal with cyber criminals to get such a VPN.
Sure, ultimately technical/knowledgeable people will be able to get around it. But preventing normies from accessing Anna's Archive is what they care about, because most people are normies.
This is because the demand for most of what accountants do is driven by government regulations and compliance. Something that always expands to fill the available budget.
It would be really helpful if this page showed side-by-side comparisons of the same program written in Kip and some other language, like say Haskell.
I'm having a hard time seeing how this is much different from record types, except that you're limited to only eight fixed record field names (one for each grammatical case).
Cases essentially act like named arguments, except the names are inferred from the case of an argument, which is inferred through morphological analysis. And that analysis can be ambiguous, so the ambiguities are solved by the type checker / elaborator. It's different from record types in the sense that you can provide the arguments in any order to a function, and the system will figure it out because of the cases.
You're right about the records providing flexible order, I overlooked that.
But Kip lets you repeat cases in arguments, so you're not limited to 8 arguments for a function. In cases where a function takes multiple arguments of the same case, the order in which those arguments are applied matters, otherwise it doesn't. So if you say "any number of arguments but only 8 are named, that seems bad", I'd understand, but that is a relatively uncommon problem to run into, especially in a toy language like this that is not meant for any serious work.
> ... and there are only eight argument names. Which seems... limiting.
I would be fine with a programming language that limited functions to 8 arguments. Not because I never have a use for more, but it's a cost I'd be willing to pay in return for my colleagues never needing more.
Pylint and ruff [0] have a check for this that is set to warn over 5 arguments, but I don't think this is enabled by default and I haven't worked anywhere where this would cause the build to fail.
> An open pull request represents a commitment from maintainers: that the contribution will be reviewed carefully and considered seriously for inclusion.
This has always been the problem with github culture.
On the Linux and GCC mailing lists, a posted patch does not represent any kind of commitment whatsoever from the maintainers. That's how it should be.
The fact that github puts the number of open PR requests at the very top of every single page related to a project, in an extremely prominent position, is the sort of manipulative "driving engagement" nonsense you'd expect from social media, not serious engineering tools.
The fact that you have to pay github money in order to permanently turn off pull requests or issues (I mean turn off, not automatically close with a bot) is another one of these. BTW codeberg lets any project disable these things.
I have an old open-source project that I archived on GitHub (because I do not maintain it anymore). Once a user opened an issue with a completely unrelated project of mine (same user account than the archived one), posting some AI slop with step-by-step click instructions how to unarchive the project and enable issues etc. He spammed the same text to two different email addresses he found from my Github page and the git history. I banned that user immediately from opening issues on that said project, closed the issue and ignored him. Just to receive another outrageous email why I did not comply with his request, and how I would dare to ban him from opening further issues. I swear, the entitlement sometimes on GitHub is unbearable.
Frankly, both parties feel like the "elected administration runs this ship like its own personal party barge" when they're out of power.
If you don't like that, the only solution is to push for limited government next time you're in power.
Whatever power you put into the hands of the government is guaranteed to fall into your enemy's hands some day. This is a deliberate design feature of the US political system. It's the only way to get people to wake up for the need to limit government power.
A good start would be ending selective prosecution by restoring the original role of grand juries: to decide whether or not to hire a contract prosecutor for a single case. Public Prosecutors can be just like Public Defenders -- contractors of the court, with no discretionary powers.
> Whatever power you put into the hands of the government is guaranteed to fall into your enemy's hands some day.
Only if there's a functioning system of checks and balances. Unfortunately, there is not. This Court is willing to use motivated reasoning to achieve its preferred outcomes; to slow-walking favorable rulings for Democrats while expediting favorable rulings for Republicans (often without explanation via the "shadow docket"); and to throw out decades of precedent in the process by ignoring stare decisis, a bedrock legal principle which ensures stability of the judicial process.
Just to give an example, consider the ban on universal (national) injunctions. One might be surprised to learn that it was the Biden administration that initially petitioned the Court for the ban. However, the Court found such a ban unnecessary then (i.e., when lower Courts were blocking the Biden administration's agenda), but conveniently found it necessary during the second Trump administration (when lower courts started blocking the Trump administration's agenda). And just as another kick in the balls, they used the birthright citizen case as a vehicle to bring the matter to Court, strengthening the President without even deigning to address the Trump administration's obviously illegal executive order.
The result of this mess is that, if the Trump administration is eventually voted out, it is highly unlikely that an incoming Democratic administration would be able to capitalize on the expansion of executive powers that this Court has given to this President. We see a similar situation in Poland. After ~a decade in power the Law & Justice party was voted out, but the new coalition government has not inherited the same ability to government, with its agenda constantly curtailed by Law & Justice appointees embedded throughout the government (including the highest court).
Trump doesn't take the normal route as any other president did.
Of course with his second term, at least people can't complain how he interacts with your ex allies like us germany. Thats fair to do, shitty and short viewed but hey.
But certain things like his fraud coins etc. this is bluntly illegal and he did not do this shit in his first term.
This is mainly because the Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons requires it.
Of course, as a soverign, the UK is free to ignore the convention, but being able to use it to deal with the nationals of other countries is more valuable than the theoretical ability to eject (whence to?) undesired birthright-citizens.
Sorry, you have been blocked
You are unable to access crowdsupply.com
Why have I been blocked?
This website is using a security service to protect itself from online attacks. The action you just performed triggered the security solution. There are several actions that could trigger this block including submitting a certain word or phrase, a SQL command or malformed data.
What can I do to resolve this?
You can email the site owner to let them know you were blocked. Please include what you were doing when this page came up and the Cloudflare Ray ID found at the bottom of this page.
Cloudflare Ray ID: 9bbed59d7bcd9dfc • Performance & security by Cloudflare
reply