Perhaps it's because English is not my first language, but I find it confusing to read "this is evidence that .... might ....". Isn't the purpose of evidence to prove a claim? If there is no conclusive evidence, I would expect it to be phrased along the lines of: "Preliminary evidence suggests that... might...".
The purpose of evidence is to provide support for a claim. However in colloquial speech we generally speak of someone having "evidence" of something when they have absolute proof.
Can't speak for the parent commenter but their situation felt familiar. I'm in a new role where I'm contributing to a very large Python codebase (first commit from over a decade ago) and whilst there's a lot of more recent code written with type hints, they're not enforced and they're not always reliable or consistent. On my second contribution, I introduced a bug that pyright immediately spotted after I upped the checks from basic to strict. Our Sentry reports a lot of non-critical bugs that are being triggered in production that in many cases are _already_ highlighted by the type checker. It's just a big enough codebase that it's not practical to attempt to fix them all.
If I were starting a project today in Python, I would definitely try setting up my tooling and processes to enforce type checking to at least some extent. Fortunately, we have a lot of guardrails that recover from the typical exceptions that occur in those cases, but as I experienced first hand, it's very easy to introduce new bugs when relying only on my intuition for those difficult-to-spot cases. Tooling definitely helps there.
My previous role had me writing TypeScript and Rust so there's always the temptation, or bias, to advocate for strict typing everywhere, but I'm conscious that it's neither practical nor feasible in large codebases with hundreds of contributors (most of whom may be more accustomed to dynamically typed languages).
To be fair, average salary varies per city* and if you earn the average salary in any city*, chances are you'll be able to rent but not buy. I've tried a few London post codes and their average salaries: deep red can't buy can't rent. I've also picked a few random places up north and around Manchester, and it came out orange. I wouldn't be surprised if the conclusion was the same for most of the country!
From layman to former submariner, a very silly question I've always wondered about and that I now have the rare chance to ask someone with some expertise: Do submarines mostly roam about or do they tend to stay relatively quiet/idle? I always imagined submarines constantly moving about but at the same time it feels like a waste of fuel.
Ohio-class submarines (the ones that carry missiles): when they're "on station" they're just tooling around staying as quiet as they can. There's a relevant phrase for them: "Three knots to nowhere"
Los Angeles and Virginia-class submarines are always doing something: doing exercises, transiting from one location to another, etc. And typically multiple things at once. While the boat is transiting from an exercise area to homeport, the team is doing engineering drills, or other kinds of training. Or the forward part of the boat is doing exercises with a carrier battle group while the engineering team is doing engineering drills. (There's ALWAYS engineering drills or maintenance happening.)
Fuel isn't a primary concern: a nuclear reactor is fueled for the life of the boat, so 30-ish years. That said, effective life of a reactor is something the Navy tracks closely, and depending on the life of the boat, the life left in the reactor, some boats are decommissioned as they get close to the end of their fuel life, and others get re-fueled. (And in the case of the USS San Francisco, who had recently been refueled before it hit an underwater mountain, they cut off the front half of the submarine and welded the front half of a recently-decommissioned submarine on, because the reactor and fuel was too valuable to go to waste)
French (& American and Royal Navy) submarines are nuclear powered. No fuel necessary.
They do have measures of "nuclear fuel" remaining, but it lasts about 30 years (at least in the American boats) so generally doesn't impact day-to-day considerations.
While I'm 100% positive the details of operational concerns like this are classified, there are 2 distinct types of submarines today with 2 different objectives:
1) Attack Submarines (e.g. Los Angeles-class & Virginia-class for USN) which usually roam within a designated operations area, surveilling, tracking, and generally keeping tabs on other nations' surface & sub-surface fleet dispositions. These subs typically have multi-week sorties and may intermittently surface for surveillance & comms.
2) Ballistic Missile Submarines aka "Boomers" (e.g. Ohio-class for USN) which are given a strategic area in which to operate and their objective is to remain silent & undetected, waiting for the hopefully-never-coming order to launch their SLBMs. These subs usually have multi-month sorties and often don't surface until the end of their patrol.
Clearly the Ballistic Missile Submarines surfaces intermittently surface
for comms as well?
If not, they won't know when to set off their missiles making then not
very useful as a deterrent
I have often wondered how close to the surface they need to get.
I would presume retractable antennas could be extended from a sub
from a non-trivial depth.
Or cable attached to buoys
Or something much smarter that I have not thought about yet.
There's a couple of different "wake up" signals that can reach deeper into water. Their biggest limitation is very low bandwidth, so an attack sub will emerge (/send up a buoy on a tether) to get an updated tactical map.
Also highlighting the E-6B Mercury (and the upcoming EC-130J), which among other communication options has a 5-mile (!) VLF antenna it deploys vertically in midair (!!) to establish limited-bandwidth communications with submarines.
I've met and hung out quite a bit with Stallman (as part of a conference organizers group) in the early 2000s and he wasn't the most self aware person when it came to social situations. He is very socially awkward. Everything I've read so far has seemed plausible, although I would also agree that it seems to be blown out of proportion. He is one of the kindest persons I've met, very idealistic, and a captivating personality. It's just super socially awkward being around him. Sometimes straight up uncomfortable.
I'm not sure tbh (English being my second language), but I guess I would? I mean, we were all very young and very nerdy and thought it was pretty cool to be having dinner with RMS himself. Still, by our nerdy standards, he stood out as being a bit awkward – perhaps partly due to the language and cultural differences (even though he spoke pretty decent Spanish).
My favourite on Indian cuisine is the Dishoom cookbook: it comes with recipes for most of their most famous dishes from their restaurant. I've tried most and, whilst the recipes might need a little tweaking to match your kitchen equipment, they are generally spot on. In fact, as far as cookbooks go, it's one of my favourites because it actually gets you close enough that you can figure out what to tweak.
And on the topic of onions: it has a three page section on caramelising onions, which will take you anywhere from half an hour to over an hour, depending on the quantity. That book doesn't lie.
I also have cookbooks that have been gifted to me that belong in the trash. You can tell from just looking at the ratios, times, and method description that the dish isn't going to turn out as expected. Worst of all, my partner is the type that can only cook from a recipe book and this has brought on many arguments over a simple suggestion to deviate from the recipe.
Restaurant cookbooks are often very good, if they give you the actual recipes they use in the restaurant.
Except... a) they're ideally making big batches, enough for 10 or 20 servings, and b) their stuff is usually very modular, i.e. made out of other recipes. How do I make that great chicken with the yogurt dip? First make the marinade (recipe on page 42). Then make the spice mix for the yogurt (recipe on page 65). Then make blackened peppers (page 210). etc etc
The four freedoms[1] of free software specifically state that:
> The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
Emphasis in "give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes".
I used to cycle daily and as far as maintenance went, it was mostly: bike tyres once a year, valves, chain lubricant, bike repair toolbox (purchase once), drum brake maintenance. All in all it would be about £100 per year on average and I'm being generous.
I've never owned a car, but the cost of replacing a lost bike (mine cost around £600) plus its maintenance (let's say £200 per year to be generous) sounds cheaper than what I'd pay for car insurance, petrol, and maintenance per year in UK/Europe. I also live in London where public transportation, even with its aging infrastructure, is wonderful.
I'd definitely get a car if I was living outside of a big relatively city, especially if it isn't planned for walking and cycling.
After trying out Hyper (electron), Warp (Rust) and iTerm (Objective-C, Swift), I'm not as much interested in the language itself, but at least the fact that it's not an Electron terminal. So I guess I do subconsciously project the "therefore better", not because it's Rust, but because I'm assuming it won't grab a couple GB of memory.
