No, what’s on second.

Well, who are they donating the money to? Don’t leave us in suspense like that.

It says he was convicted in a Russian-controlled court which is not at all the same thing. International law is clear on this and Russia is clearly breeching it.

Try putting some more effort into your trolling, I quoted the actual appropriate law.

He is a member of the International Legion for the Defence of Ukraine and as such is unambiguously not a mercenary by the definition used in the Geneva Convention and so is owed the protections afforded to prisoners of war.

Specifically, article 47 of Protocol 1 is clear that a neccesary condition to be considered a mercenary is that a person:

is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict

The fact that Russia has a history of ignoring this is not the knock-out argument you seem to think it is.

What’s a little contravention of the Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War between friends?

Tony Hoare: “Introducing NULL was a billion-dollar mistake”

Brendan Eich: “Hold my undefined”

Neat, I’ve always wanted a Palestine. Where can I pick it up?

Also trees, natural light and less densely packed desks than in any office I’ve ever worked in. Unironically looks better than having a job.

I don’t know of a proof that pi is normal in any base (even non-integer bases) so I’d be interested to see on what basis you can guarantee it.

Obligatory “pi hasn’t been proved to be normal”

It’s a monoid in the category of endofunctors. Obviously.

Aww a whole new generation of devs get to make the same mistakes SOAP made. Makes me feel all fuzzy inside.

Do people not read compiler errors or something? Finding missing semicolons is easy.

)

I’ll take “why is my codebase full of technical debt” for 500, Alex.

Are the Democrats in the room with us right now?

Sure but who’s got time for all that aggravation? Especially if it’s not part of the codebase I have to work with personally. LGTM and let it be someone else’s problem.

https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/386194/why-do-we-still-grow-the-stack-backwards

TL;DR: For historical reasons stacks growing down is defined in hardware on some CPUs (notably x86). On other CPUs like some ARM chips for example you (or more likely your compiler’s developer) can technically choose which direction stacks go but not conforming to the historical standard is the choice of a madman.

As does bumming a fag

Anti-dueterium would need the anti-proton to be bound to an anti-neutron (with an orbiting positron if you wanted neutral anti-deuterium)