Because ever since Kissinger the national security advisor has been the conduit between the president and intelligence agencies. And Bolton was in that position when the FBI opened the safe at Epstein’s place.

The “conduit”? Correct me if I’m wrong but the National Security Advisor isn’t out kicking in doors when the FBI go on raids. The FBI is not an intelligence agency (it has an intelligence branch) and being the “conduit” doesn’t mean he has the ability, inclination, foresight or skullduggery to gather such “insurance policies.”

If I said a rectangle was a square, would you say that’s only possible if every rectangle was a square?

If you said that on a specific day the sun rose because you had prayed really hard for it to pray the previous day, I would be asking you what about all the other days when it rose without your apparent intervention.

Reality…

Not good enough.

What about America in 2025 makes you write off every conspiracy as fake?

I’m calling out your conspiracy theory thinking. Target John Bolton with an FBI investigation is a conspiracy, is a fascist abuse of power and is not, in any way, giving Trump “the benefit of the doubt.” But it’s not conspiracy theory thinking, because there’s no super secret bullshit that only a select few are smart enough to work out - it’s the regular kind of secret stuff that we can infer based on facts and evidence.

To believe your story I have to believe that there’s a high chance John Bolton has “the Epstein list” and has kept it as insurance. You have given me no reason to believe this except that Bolton was head of - not the FBI, not the DoJ, but the National Security Council. So what? On the basis of such weak evidence you’d be saying that thousands of government officials have Epstein related “insurance”.

You’re not, though, because you’re not actually basing this on any thought process which takes evidence into account.

The difference between N and N+2 should be minimal, as opposed to “as much as we can get”.

1. What makes you think John Bolton would have anything Epstein-related?
2. What about the many, many other individuals Trump has targeted with the DoJ and other branches of government? Do they all have an Epstein-related “insurance policy” as well?
3. What makes you think Trump is “freaking out” about Epstein? He has said several things disapproving of the intense interest in Epstein, but that’s not enough to make me think that any time he abuses the government to target his opponents it must be because of that.

This is like all conspiracy theories: you’ve got a pet idea that would be exciting if it were true and so you’re minded to ignore any alternative explanations for the facts.

If he releases something, and says it’s everything, anyone that might have retained information from prior to Joe Biden’s presidency is a threat.

What’s to prevent him from saying they’ve fabricated it?

sapeur de combat (combat engineer?)

Sapper in en-gb!

You need to

Given it was a joke, I don’t think you need to do anything…

The OS’s file APIs won’t have a defined order in which they return entries in a directory

Sorting is a thing :)

I’m surprised they didn’t go for a measure which aims to give back worse than they got, but still with a defined quantity. For example “The number of seats the Republicans are likely to gain, plus 2”, or “plus 30%” or whatever.

Remove tinfoil before opening mouth.

This is much simpler: Bolton opposed Trump, therefore he is an enemy of Trump, therefore an enemy of the state, therefore a legitimate target for harassment through law enforcement. Same way if in Russia someone opposes Putin he will have goons come after him. It all discourages any kind of opposition, because most opponents will go away if you just trash their house or beat them up a bit.

Verification is important, but I think you’re omitting from your imagination a real and large category of people who have a basic familiarity with spreadsheets and computers, so are able to understand a potential solution and see whether it makes sense, but who do not have the ability to quickly come up with it themselves.

In language it’s the difference between receptive and productive vocabulary: there are words which you understand but which you would never say or write because they’re part of your receptive, but not productive knowledge.

There are times when this will go wrong, because the LLM will can produce something plausible but incorrect and such a person will fail to spot it. And of course if you blindly trust it with something you’re not actually capable of (or willing to) check then you will also get bad results.

I got around to watching this video… without having seen this guy before (and therefore having no reason to take what he says at face value), and with the “source” in his description being almost unrelated to the video content, all that’s left is that “Yoti is funded by trusts, Carnegie is a trust mentioned on Yoti’s website.”

That is conspiracy-theory level. The author doesn’t even go so far as to draw actual conclusions; he’s saying “we need to follow the money” which is reasonable, but you are saying “Carnegie invested in an age verifier and that’s why they wrote the law.” That’s going well beyond the facts. You wouldn’t stand for it when some moron tries to cast doubt on climate science and you shouldn’t stand for it now just because it tickles your biases.

Some of that money probably went to companies doing ID verification

Quite possibly. But almost certainly a lot of Carnegie’s money is going to companies who provide online services who now have much higher costs from doing age verification, content blocking and users fleeing, simply because there are a lot of companies in that position.

A couple of days ago I started it using Steam remote play to the deck, just assuming that it would suck on Deck itself. Apparently it gets 40fps on low settings on Deck which is better than I expected but still kinda sucky.

The blog post is really about language design, because you definitely should not write a filter method for your custom iterable class in python; you should make it use the language’s interface’s for “being an iterable”. Language design involves APIs offered by the language, but isn’t really the purview of most people who write APIs.

If a suggestion on language design would gain something at the cost of readability, anyone should be very skeptical of that.

Those things together explain why I am evaluating the post mostly in terms of readability.

I assume someone wanting to “integrate their phone’s functionality” is OK with a bit of personal data sharing with big tech.

Aren’t Meta’s smart glasses that?

Assistive technology is a massive area of development in smart glasses; it absolutely is being designed for people with vision and hearing impairments.

I dunno, did we?

I think rust’s iterator chains are nice, and IDE auto-complete is part of that niceness. But comprehension expressions read very naturally to me, more so than iterator chains.

I mean, how many python programmers don’t even type hint their code, and so won’t get (accurate) auto-complete anyway? Auto-completion is nice but just not the be-all and end-all.

I would never have thought to try to play Elden Ring on a handheld console, never mind a Switch (2).

You know what actually works for this? A physical slider like my second smartphone had which switches between silent, vibrate and loud. That was the only time I actually switched away from vibrate because it was easy, and I could do it in my pocket without looking at the phone (especially nice in situations where looking at it might itself be rude)

Implying that hackers are going to be doing worse than the Russian government…

Welcome to politics. Have you never seen parliament debate?

Yes. The convincing speeches are those with facts behind them.

You are wrong. The vibes tell me… but so do the facts.

I was also thinking about UFCS. I do like it for its flexibility, but I did try it in Nim one time and was left feeling unsure. Unfortunately I now can’t remember what exactly I didn’t like about it.