Assets don’t have to have be in on it intentionally. A tank is an asset. A forest at the border can be an asset. But to be an agent takes volition and consensual involvement.

This is so stupid. He is an asset, whether intentionally or not. Russian media is having a heyday with him. Whether he is an “agent” or not remains ambiguous, but he is absolutely an “asset” to them.

Maybe even fifth and a half.

This same infighting comment in every single thread.

Well, that precludes being a loyalist, doesn’t it? So clearly not the group to which I was referring. No need to be reductive as I’m not claiming a binary worldview.

No party loyalist will ever admit the party is in any way culpable for its own losses.

Some of us would argue 10 is the n+1 th number because zero comes first. Otherwise you’re just throwing a new digit into the mix when you get to 10.

Oh don’t mistake me for saying their hands are clean or that they aren’t exporting tons of oil. I’m just saying the oil could stop flowing and that fund would keep right on making money.

I’m not sure how all the current math shakes out, but I don’t think they do require that. The sovereign wealth fund is making more money on its investments than is being generated by the sale of oil. I think, but me and Jon Snow know all the same stuff about this.

I wonder if this is a bit of a false dichotomy. I don’t think you’ll find anybody that wants it “back how it was before”, but rather how it is going now but without all the collateral damage and arrests of innocent people.

deleted by creator

I was able to make no inferences about any of the statements or what they mean.

I say the wealth bit with tongue in cheek, but I mean as some function of wealth distribution or gdp. There is some amount of wealth that is too much and really hurts society to be hoarded. I agree with you though and share your views on the points you made.

You can say “I’m anti x except in y circumstance.” You just can. You saying this prevents you from being anti that thing is just foolish in my view. Saying I’m anti abortion or anti choice in some cases are both things that can be both said and believed. That’s the point.

And to say that one is either absolutely anti or not anti at all is a false dichotomy. It is possible to be anti anything to some extent along a gradient.

To be clear, I’m against capital punishment on the grounds that governments regularly convict innocent people. But I also don’t think the law should protect people with some amount of wealth.

Tell me about your view on abortion. Not okay from conception or okay until 18 years of age? What a bullshit false dichotomy. It is possible to say I support something to this point. That doesn’t make you pro this or anti that. Nuance does exist.

Ah the ol’ defenestration situation.

deleted by creator

I didn’t say the source of failure. I said a source of ambiguity. And having also been in the industry for decades, I have encountered it many times, where a junior programmer or somebody new to a project read some documentation and assumed a behavior which in fact did not match the current implementation. So you may have been fortunate, but your experience is certainly not ubiquitous.

With respect to variable names, I’d suggest those too should absolutely be updated too if the name is given in a way that adds ambiguity.

I’m not saying comments are bad; rather that bad comments are bad, and sometimes worse than no comment.

And your colleagues are probably correct with respect to this sort of «what it does» commenting. That can be counterproductive because if the code changes and the comment isn’t updated accordingly, it can be ambiguous. Better have the code be the singular source of truth. However, «why it does it» comments are another story and usually accepted by most as helpful.

Strange times that your comment is both wrong and perfectly sensible.