> with Crimea specifically called out, ironically, the United Kingdom and the United States have to immediately declare war on Russia and open hostilities.
It says no such thing (as the Wikipedia article you linked points out). The most it says is that they shall seek "immediate United Nations Security Council action" if "Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used."
There is no such thing as an inherent right. Rights are a legal construct. They don't grow on trees and are not laws of physics. There are rights that I may believe should be universal, yet very clearly are not.
East Germany did not "collapse" in any sense relevant to a discussion about preppers. It peacefully re-unified with West Germany and was never in anything resembling a state of anarchy.
The shortages of pretty much everything and stasi terror tactics of the 1980s would resemble a “collapsed” state in most western views. It was not as bad as USSR or what we normally think of as a collapsed state (e.g. Haiti of today), but it sure was not even close to the western Germany standard of living. The article also goes on to describe poverty for the main protagonist well into early 2000. While I’m not German, so will likely never truly understand the cultural implications, the partitioning off of the forced soviet state in east Germany was a terrible outcome and had similar dire consequences as what happened in the rest of the eastern bloc.
Or worse than NP-hard: C++ template instantiation and the C preprocessor are Turing complete. (Except that I believe C++ requires some fixed limit on the maximum instantiation depth, but even so it's still exponential complexity.)
I believe you can encode paradoxes in C++ templating.
Something about two specializations which are mutually impossible because they reference eachother. So you can say:
A is of type T <=> B is not of type T
B is of type T <=> A is not of type T
Where <=> is if and only if.
In which case it is paradoxical to say that A is of type T. But also paradoxical to say that A is not of type T.
Note that "a template for which no valid instantiation is possible" is actually ill-formed, no diagnostic required.
That said, it's not clear to me what part of "you can write uninstantiable templates" is surprising, so I'm probably not understanding correctly. Maybe you could find the C++ code you're talking about? I would be interested.
That's surprising, the C preprocessor is pretty crippled. It's creator intentionally made it so people won't abuse it to create full blown mini languages.
Did you get things mixed up or is there actually a way the c preprocessor can be turing-complete ?
Not sure whether this proves turing completeness of the preprocessor or not(probably not) but Simon Tatham has a great(and somewhat disturbing) write-up[1] on creating arbitrary control structures using macros in C. He even goes as far as providing a library of helper macros for doing things like making gensyms, etc.
If nothing else, it does demonstrate that you can do a lot more in the preprocessor than you might think, and this is at least a significant subset of what true MP macros are used for in Lisp most of the time. Except much gnarlier...
I believe that while you can't encode an infinite tape, you can very easily define an arbitrarily large tape, so, while not technically Turing complete, it is close enough.
> The word ‘photo’ comes from the Greek word for light.
> A photo may also be referred to as a ‘photograph’, this is a combination of the Greek words for light and drawing; A photograph is a drawing made of light.
Trying to assume as much good faith in the original comment, GP may have been talking about the difference between the original photo and the resulting published jpeg file.
And sometimes they have false memories. For example, regarding:
> 8 Months ago Kamala Harris herself said she would NOT get Trump's Vaccine.
What she said was that she would take the vaccine if the professionals said it was safe, not if Trump told her to take it [1]. A rather understandable level of skepticism given Trump's peddling of miracle cures such as hydroxychloroquine.
How would a scenario exist where Trump would say take it, but professionals wouldn't be also saying it? How would it even exist? Professionals invented it.
According to https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/, Singapore has a total of 31 coronavirus deaths, one of the lowest per capita death rates in the world. So it seems to have worked very well.
That's great, so the most important data point was missing from the article: that it was worth it, as lots of lives were saved. It's just the opposite of the 2nd world war tracking where it caused deaths.
