saying that the British should inherit it is a very weak argument

Yes, I am not making that argument, inheritors mush be at least somewhat related.

Although, in case you’re talking about, the indigenous people’s artifacts will likely end up in the country of their conquerors and oppressors, which is also a shame

It’s not an empire if you call it a federation /s

This is reasonable, but what if the culture that created the artifacts already went extinct like Maya? Besides, we’re not only talking about how it shouldn’t have been done in the past, but also about what to do today with that past.

It’s easy to say that everything bad of today is only because of wrongdoings of yesterday, but it is not useful and usually is only used as propaganda for something that has no justification except for the past being bad.

Edit: although, now that I think about it, coming from this viewpoint, that past is past and we should care about present, it’s clear that you’re right. If the culture bearer (or the inheritor, but this is grey zone for me) wants to destroy what is rightfully theirs, so be it. There is a bit of an issue with making those decisions by all eligible people, not a couple of extremists, though. Well, I think I found the contradiction that I had in me

As far, as I know, there are many cases of not returning on the ground of owners not having conditions to preserve.

But thanks for replying at least, I was hoping to see opposing opinions to try to understand what am I missing, not just ‘stealing bad’ downvotes

Oh, I didn’t know that, neat. Then there’s no space for nit-picking

Yes, but it still is about language, not game engine.

Albeit technically, the statement is correct, since it is more specific.

This is a conundrum I can’t wrap my head around. One (country, usually) can have something of cultural significance, and decide what to do with that. They can make it a museum, make it generally available, forbid access at all, and even destroy it completely (e.g. see Palmyra under ISIS).

If the object in question is not protected by UNESCO (and really, even if it is) no one has a say in that. The only remotely correct argument that can be made is that destroying historical artifacts makes it hard or impossible to study history, but one can argue that we don’t need to study history, it’s not like this is an imperative. Another argument may be that things do not belong to those who have it, but instead to their people as inheritors of people who lived long ago, but I don’t think that also helps.

And so, on one hand, I am for preserving artifacts and not destroying those, on the other hand, I don’t quite see what moral ground is there for it.

This looks like some kind of doom:

{“data”:{“error”:“Imgur is temporarily over capacity. Please try again later.”},“success”:false,“status”:403}

And after this guys are poking fun on Europeans for not caring about work out of work hours. Man I would prefer the European attitude more, if it’s not an emergency response team (which also should only work during the work hours, it just has those at odd times)

If you use phone to carry explosive, and a separate device to direct the explosion you can cause a lot of (directed) destruction.

But maybe not crash the airplane as a result.

Not only them, and I’m not here to blame 😅

There’s no such thing as “zeroith” because it’s called “zeroth — being numbered zero in a series”

This works for building storeys, this would work equally well for tables. The only reason this is not used often is because the series are rarely zero-based in anything that doesn’t also want to equate index and offset.

You’re right that first may be read as “opposite of last”, that would add to the confusion, but that’s just natural language not being precise enough.

Edit: spelling

Edit2: also, if you extend that logic, when you’re presented with an ordinal number, you would need to first check all the options, sort them, and then apply the position you’re asked, that’s not really how people would expect ordinal number to be treated, not me, at the very least

Well, as they say, “common sense is not very common”, but thinking a bit before rushing in may always do good.

It’s the number of the signal sent, 9 is for SIGKILL. You can send various signals with kill, and depending on how application was made it may react on all signals with dying, or meaningfully process most of them. Afaik, SIGKILL can’t be processed by the app, and it always means just that: “die already”.

Checked in Wikipedia, that’s about right but there are more details I left out, mostly because didn’t know about them, too: POSIX signals

Augenmass? Keeping distance or something?

No, it’s when someone wanted to change docs to say “they” when referring to the user. I don’t think it was really necessary, but refusal to do that looks like a statement I don’t like.

The team I’m part of wants to ditch Nix in favour of just about anything, because no one wants to maintain Nix and everyone sees it as just source of problems :(

I agree that it was complicated to learn Nix for me, too, but now I see benefits in it but I can’t make them change their mind and tired of trying. Nix could’ve been much easier to advocate for if the language itself wasn’t this esoteric

I may be too far from Python to tell, but it looks kind of incorrect to equate the author and their product. What if Guido decides to stop contributing, will Python end then? Creators of Rust spoken about the fact that Rust went very much not the way they wanted it to, this doesn’t make them not creators, nor does it make Rust not Rust

deleted by creator