I deliberately chose a high number, because I'm saying there's no reason this would satiate Putin. He has no need for those 20% land. Why should he stop when he gets them?

The war did not contribute much to the cost of living here. We now have to import natural gas from different nations, and apparently Ukraine was the #1 supplier of sunflower seeds, but that's mostly it.
The cost of living mainly rose due to a housing bubble and inflation. And of course, you've got lots of individuals that lost their livelihood from COVID lockdowns, post-COVID chronic fatigue and climate-related catastrophes.

I also have no idea what you mean by the current government being opposed to ending the war. They don't want to invade Russia to defeat Putin, no one here wants to try that. But unlike the far right, they are in favor of supporting Ukraine to hold Putin off.
If your idea of ending the war is giving Putin half of Ukraine and hoping he's then satiated, I do not see how that should work. It's not like Russia needs more territory. Putin started this war, because he's mentally ill. He will start another war in a few years, if this one is "ended" by sacrificing Ukraine, because he will still be mentally ill.

Unfortunately, it is, yeah. Inflation and a rising cost of living leaves many citizen with not much choice, but to believe that their situation will improve, if we just stop accepting immigrants and stop helping out Ukraine and stop fighting climate change and whatever else there is.

Of course, the actual solution would be getting more money into poor people's pockets.
Politicians without morals will rather risk a Fourth Reich, though, because the actual solution is hard, not just for them but also their sponsors.

We have elections coming up. That's why the guy suddenly takes new positions that he never represented before.

Where did they get the tech experts from?

To my knowledge, we also have zero evidence that they didn't exist. Nor have we ever observed matter/energy appearing out of thin air vaccuum, so it seems unlikely to me.

Based on the title, I thought it would just bleep out the customer voice. That would certainly not make the customer less angry. 🙃

Hmm, do you mean in the web console?

I know Firefox has a bit of a reputation for being rather precise in how it handles web standards compliance. So, it'll show comparatively many warnings and errors, if you don't keep to the web standards.

This is actually quite useful for web devs, because it means, if Firefox is happy with your implementation, then it's relatively likely to run correctly on all browsers.

deleted by creator

Yeah, I'm imagining, I've run into these problems in the past and then the compiler told me to do it differently and so I did. I'm definitely glad that such unobvious behavior is being reduced, I just probably won't realize until I'm writing similar code the next time and the compiler does not complain.

I only really understand half of it without getting my fingers on it, but sounds like some good stuff.

The path::absolute() that's hidden in the stabilized items is definitely something I've wanted for a while, though.

Yeah, learning Rust has given me greater appreciation for C/C++. Like, the selling feature of all three is that they don't use a runtime, which means you're not locked into that ecosystem. You can create libraries with them, that can be used from virtually any other language.

It's also easy to say that the performance of Java, Python et al is fine, but having a larger application start up in 1 rather than 20 seconds is still always appreciated.

That's a "crash cymbal", by the way. Pronunciation is very similar, but it's a different word.

deleted by creator

I mean, that makes sense, but consider the other side. You find some document that very clearly says that you have a license to do whatever the hell you want with it.

In this particular case, you probably heard the news, but in many other cases, you just couldn't trust any license anymore, because there's just no way to know whether something was intended to be licensed like that. It would pretty much defeat the purpose of licensing anything at all.

"Web3" is the crypto stuff. "Web 3.0" is federation.

Obviously, no one has a trademark on these names, anyone could make up a meaning, but yeah, these two definitions/names exist already.

I do that kind of thing, yes. Although I usually find it so distasteful, that I lose interest in watching other videos anyways.

But yeah, especially when it's a channel making educational content, there's a chance that some viewers take the sponsored section as general educational content (no matter, whether that's because they're gullible, young or did not pay attention when the sponsor segway happened).

There's also various tech channels which recommend products that are objectively worse than the alternatives, or even exert malware-like behaviour. Those also immediately lose any and all respect from me.

Obviously, if it was a genuinely good product, it wouldn't need the sponsorship deal for people to make videos about it. So, I do understand the struggle.
But everyone wanting to make a living off of media has that struggle. If I artificially inflate the view numbers of one media creator, the others receive less sponsorship money.

I'm too lazy to edit it, but you get the idea:

*removed externally hosted image*

Interesting, I had been wondering why they looked relatively uneven around the edges. I guess, that's also why they're comparatively small and need less time for cooking.

Please appreciate my shitty drawing skills. 🙃