squaresinger

A murder is a murder, legally speaking.

Tbh, the big issue with why nazis exist in these large quantities is that the financial situation of people is going down. That's the one big thing there. And left-wing parties mostly all over the world did nothing against that.

The rich, the billionaires and all that lot are siphoning wealth off the rest of the world and nobody does anything against that. Instead, left-wing parties got entangled in social justice topics (which are important) but completely forgot left economics (which are critical). Left-wing discussion moved from important but rather boring topics (e.g. how to distribute wealth better) to extremely polarizing but not that critical-to-daily-life topics (e.g. "This politician used a word wrong!").

That was basically the whole 2000s and the first half of the 2010s.

In the 1990s, nazis were hardly a thing because people had jobs, housing and food. That's changed now. And since the left-wing parties aren't about to change anything, people are flocking to right-wing parties and -ideologies because they are literally to dumb to understand that the change that right-wing is going to effect is change against the people.

But if we actually wanted to stop nazis, we would have to abolish billionaires (and pretty much anyone who has more than >50 million) and redistribute wealth. We need a new new deal. Because what killed the nazis wasn't WW2, but new deal economics.

No, it's whatabputism if it has nothing to do with the original argument.

Works fine in any language I ever used.

I'm honestly quite surprised that this very basic language feature is even a matter of discussion here.

Nope, it is not.

x = 5
i = 2
x -= i // x => 3

while

x = 5
i = 2
x = -i // x => -2

x=-i is the unary minus operator which negates the value right of it. It doesn't matter if that value is a literal (-3), a variable (-i) or a function (-f()).

x-=i is short for x = x-i, and here it's a binary subtraction, so x is set to the result of i subtracted from x.

Find me a language where it doesn't work like that, and we'll continue the discussion.

Unary - operator is standard in every single language that I used so far, including C/C++, Java, Python, Kotlin, Lua, JS/TS, Groovy, PHP, Visual Basic, Excel, Mathematica, Haskell, Bash.

Here's more info btw: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unary_operation

That's a pretty strong case of whataboutism. Nobody said that anything was fine and dandy in China. Only that they planned to build a high speed rail and they did it, while the US repeatedly fails at the same thing.

Yeah, generating test classes with AI is super fast. Just ask it, and within seconds it spits out full test classes with some test data and the tests are plenty, verbose and always green. Perfect for KPIs and for looking cool. Hey, look at me, I generated 100% coverage tests!

Do these tests reflect reality? Is the test data plausible in the context? Are the tests easy to maintain? Who cares, that's all the next guy's problem, because when that blows up the original programmer will likely have moved on already.

Good tests are part of the documentation. They show how a class/method/flow is used. They use realistic test data that shows what kind of data you can expect in real-world usage. They anticipate problems caused due to future refactorings and allow future programmers to reliably test their code after a refactoring.

At the same time they need to be concise and non-verbose enough that modifying the tests for future changes is simple and doesn't take longer than the implementation of the change. Tests are code, so the metric of "lines of code are a cost factor, so fewer lines is better" counts here as well. It's a big folly to believe that more test lines is better.

So if your goal is to fulfil KPIs and you really don't care whether the tests make any sense at all, then AI is great. Same goes for documentation. If you just want to fulfil the "every thing needs to be documented" KPI and you really don't care about the quality of the documentation, go ahead and use AI.

Just know that what you are creating is low-quality cost factors and technical debt. Don't be proud of creating shitty work that someone else will have to suffer through in the future.

Why would they not let you do that? I honestly don't know a single language that wouldn't let you do that. Same as basic math notation allows you to do that.

x = -i

is a totally valid mathematical equation.

For the downvoters: Find me a single language that supports operators but doesn't have an unary minus operator

In general, Tree support is easier to remove but has a higher chance of failing. Tree support also only really makes sense if you can get it to go around a part.

So say you are printing a standing O shape. With regular support the support will touch the bottom of the O and will be printed on top of the bottom part of the O, which will make that surface look rougher. Tree support will start sideways of the O and will only move into the O towards the top, so it will not touch the bottom part of the O, leaving it in good condition.

In the case here there's nothing underneath most of the floating surfaces, so regular supports will be better.

Also, tree support is better when it supports small areas, regular support is better for large areas.

This. No need to realize any gains at all. The same trick also works for any other expenses.

Teleport?

This is a super difficult model. There's no good orientation for it.

I'd probably print it as oriented on the picture and use a lot of support. If classic support isn't working for you, try organic/tree support, but I think the regular support would be better. Support should cover the full underside with this print.

When printing in PLA make sure you have really, really good cooling for this.