We’re not.

But then, who is, these days?

I say we let them hang with us. They’re a little confused, but they’re adorable enough.

Also, talesfromtechsupport effectively became talesfromtech because just tech support is to small of a niche to sustain a sub with content. Likewise, if we banned all the not-strictly-programming humour, I don’t know the community will thrive still. It might drive out both content and viewers, and while it’s arguably correct, I don’t think it’s wise.

I’d rather have it be something vaguely resembling the type of humour programmers tend to have than a little walled-off box with a big sign “NERDS ONLY”

Are you trying to argue that laws and treaties are worthless unless enough people abide by them and are willing to enforce them?

Because, yes, that is the fundamental principle of society: We need to work together to survive and thrive, so we agree on rules by which we work, and enforce them on those that break them. If you disagree with something but take no steps to oppose it, your disagreement is just as worthless as a law nobody cares to enforce.

So what point are you trying to make here? “If China enforced their claim and nobody stopped them, their claim would be effectively valid”? How is that relevant to the situation if all they’re doing is protesting, but nobody else cares to back them up and they don’t actually take measures to prevent the passage?

“If I put pineapple on my Pizza and nobody stops or punishes me, it’s legal”? Yes. Congrats. You understood the very basics. Want a sticker?

I’ll plug an interesting blog post on the topic of using chemical weapons. The post concerns itself mostly with lethal weapons, but I feel like some of the points apply here as well.

The essence is that for modern military systems, mobility and the relative cost of manufacturing, storing and employing (lethal) chemical weapons compared to protective equipment render them much less valuable than conventional explosive munitions. They see usage mostly between weaker static armies, which lack the equipment, training or command doctrines for modern warfare.

The banning of chemical weapons was done because they weren’t generally very useful for the modern systems of the superpowers at the time. Russia cracking them out again suggests they no longer have all the capabilities of a modern superpower. Which probably isn’t super new for most people, but might be worth spelling out anyway.

So in a weird, roundabout way, he’s saving these people from prison by putting them out of work instead?

And probably making it harder for the court to slap fines on his company and make them stick, but I’d give that a pass in this case.

Right? Fourth Estate doing its job, bitch. They spend enough time sucking capitalist dick, let them have this.

A vacation in a foreign land
Mother Russia does the best she can

I think of them frequently. They have my thoughts and prayers.

Not my help, of course. They should have to work for their success just as hard as the rest of us. But I hope that they’ll be able to carve out a living with their labour!

Two years
A few major events

My god, they must’ve really fucked up their shit

…for which my default fix would be to delete and reenter it in hopes of fixing ehatever hiccup the syntax validator is having

In Unicode, it is separately encoded as U+037E ; GREEK QUESTION MARK, but the similarity is so great that the code point is normalised to U+003B ; SEMICOLON, making the marks identical in practice.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_mark

I’m still curious whether it would be accepted by the code interpreters / compilers of various languages. I’m not bold enough to assume they all normalise properly.