True! For all you non-Nordics, that's a Finnish Spitz and they're certified good boyes. My personal favorite is the Finnish Lapphund because they're so incredibly floofy, and it's an interesting breed because it was originally bred by the Sámi for herding reindeer:
XML has a bad rap because people went a bit (ok a lot) overboard with it in the early years, pretty much like what happens with a lot of other technologies, but as far as structured and human-readable data formats with good schema and tooling support go, it's pretty much unbeatable. Now that JSON is the New Good Tech and XML is the Old Bad Tech, too many developers use JSON where XML would absolutely make more sense, and then we end up with unholy abominations like Portable Text, which is JSON pretending to be XML, and is so incredibly verbose and monumentally stupid that it feels like some sort of joke esolang data format rather than something being used in a production system. But no, here we are, god is dead and JSON is XML.
XML is terrific for building eg. structured markup languages with more complex markup than what something like Markdown can provide, and have the resulting files be comparatively readable, at least in comparison to the JSON-based alternatives – compare HTML to Portable Text, for example. XML has such a bad reputation – partially deservedly – that people just automatically assume it's not a valid tool for anything modern, even when the modern "NoSQL", "structured and typed data is for nerds, suck it" JSON solution is a giant pile of shit compared to the XML alternative
One would think, but with both Thiel and Bezos in the competition this isn't as cut-and-dry as you'd assume. Thiel especially is fucking evil, he's way worse than Musk
There's actually a few different methods that can give you at least more accurate results if not 100% accurate (which polling never really is in the first place.)
Eg. list experiments are a potentially useful method. You start off with a list of statements like "I like candy" or whatever and you ask people how many of those they agree with (ie. not which ones, just the amount), which gives you an approximate baseline. Then you give another set of people the same list but with eg. "I support the war in Ukraine" added on (hypothetical example, nobody please get pedantic about the wording), and you then compare the total number of agreed-on statements with your baseline. Here's an example from LSE last year that used this method: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2022/04/06/do-russians-tell-the-truth-when-they-say-they-support-the-war-in-ukraine-evidence-from-a-list-experiment/
You might want to read this blog post on this subject. What I'm quoting here is the central message, but do yourself a favor and actually read the rest and don't just respond based on this quote
Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty. Tolerance is a social norm because it allows different people to live side-by-side without being at each other’s throats. It means that we accept that people may be different from us, in their customs, in their behavior, in their dress, in their sex lives, and that if this doesn’t directly affect our lives, it is none of our business. But the model of a peace treaty differs from the model of a moral precept in one simple way: the protection of a peace treaty only extends to those willing to abide by its terms. It is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact.
When viewed through this lens, the problems above have clear answers. The antisocial member of the group, who harms other people in the group on a regular basis, need not be accepted; the purpose of your group’s acceptance is to let people feel that they have a home, and someone who actively tries to thwart this is incompatible with the broader purpose of that acceptance. Prejudice against Nazis is not the same as prejudice against Blacks, because one is based on people’s stated opposition to their neighbors’ lives and safety, the other on a characteristic that has nothing to do with whether they’ll live in peace with you or not. Freedom of religion means that people have the right to have their own beliefs, but you have that same right; you are under no duty to tolerate an attempt to impose someone else’s religious laws on you.
[…]
If we interpreted tolerance as a moral absolute, or if our rules of conduct were entirely blind to the situation and to previous actions, then we would regard any measures taken against an aggressor as just as bad as the original aggression. But through the lens of a peace treaty, these measures have a different moral standing: they are tools which can restore the peace.
they have yet to conclude whether it was an accident or a deliberate act.
Emphasis mine. Although it should be noted that people connected to the investigations have said that it's unlikely it was an accident due to the layer of rock that covers the cable, but there's nothing definite yet.
Also, whether they have literally no motive for sabotage is, well, questionable; "I can't come up with a reason" isn't equal to "they have no reason". Seems unlikely it was intentional if it was NewNew Polar Bear, but we don't know if that ship's actually related to the breakage, let alone whether they did it on purpose if it was.
Git diff will look pretty terrible for docx or similar files. The thing with the builtin change tracking is that it'll actually show you what changed in the document view
Seriously, PROTECT YOUR FUCKING HEARING. I was young and stupid (now I'm no longer young) and went to way too many raves, gigs etc. without any sort of hearing protection, and now I have a nice constant background track of EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE and can't hear higher frequencies worth shit
True! For all you non-Nordics, that's a Finnish Spitz and they're certified good boyes. My personal favorite is the Finnish Lapphund because they're so incredibly floofy, and it's an interesting breed because it was originally bred by the Sámi for herding reindeer: