Saying Israel has no right to exist is covered in an isolated sense in every EU country I can think of. It only becomes a problem if you say or imply that committing genocide against Israelis is a “solution”, or otherwise advocate for violence or hate crimes.

Saying that “a two state solution can never work, Israel should be absorbed by Palestine and other neighbouring countries” is a legitimate political opinion that is protected by free speech.

Nordic model lets goo!

As mentioned by others: No matter how it’s weighed, and no matter what it lands on, there’s a 1/6 probability that the other dice will land on the number you need to get seven. The probability of getting seven is independent of the “first” dice.

You need to roll two dice to get a sum of seven. Consider two fair dice: No matter what the first dice lands on, there’s a 1/6 probability that the second dice lands on the number you need to get a total of seven.

Consider now that one dice is weighted such that it always lands on 6. After you’ve thrown this dice, you throw the second dice, which has a 1/6 chance of landing on 1, so the probability of getting seven is still 1/6.

Of course, the order of the dice being thrown is irrelevant, and the same argument holds no matter how the first dice is weighted. Essentially, the probability of getting seven total is unaffected by the “first” dice, so it’s 1/6 no matter what.

These to are grammatically equivalent to the English version though, because we use the “er/et”-ending in the verb instead of the English “is”. Without a subject it would just be “regner/regnet”.

After hearing about people with valid visas having their phone confiscated and private messages read, without any prior suspicion of wrongdoing, before being detained and sent back without further process, I’ve decided that I won’t be entering the US anytime soon.

I was in the US for a conference last year, but won’t be going for any more conferences in the US in the foreseeable future. Nice to see that the conferences are being moved to safer places.

Exactly! I’m sick of people being labelled as racist because they’ve said some keyword that someone has decided makes them racist, even when their intents and opinions are clearly not racist.

Saying it’s “uncivilised” to publicly beat someone to death because they <insert whatever>, cannot be racist, because you’re not concerned with “race” in any way. Going further and saying that a country that allows such practices is uncivilised is, again, inherently not racist, because the reason for calling them uncivilised has nothing to do with the “race” of the people involved.

I want to fill in on the fact that any journal can end up publishing garbage science if someone is able to dupe the reviewers. This means that no matter what journal you’re reading, you need to read science critically. Sensational claims require sensational evidence, and ideally any work should be 100% reproducible based on the information given in the article.

Depending on the field, you can also often get a good indicator by investigating the authors of the article (checking out the last author first is a good tip). This mostly applies to very recent research where looking at citations is a poor indicator of quality, but where research is often dominated by a few reputable research groups around the world.

For older research, looking at how often the article has been cited, by whom, and why, can give you a very good indicator of the quality of the research. Solid research is often built upon later, while garbage is often refuted and then abandoned.

Of course, none of the above is infallible, but if you read critically to ensure the research makes sense, find that it originates from a reputable group, and see that others have based newer research on it, it’s probably trustworthy. After a while you start building up an impression of the most important names and journals in the field, but that requires reading quite a few articles and noticing which names and journals repeatedly show up.

Exactly: I have friends that got a drivers license in th US, and the education/test is honestly a joke compared to what they require here, and it clearly shows in the number of driving-related deaths.

It is, in fact, very easy for them to tell whether you license specifies that you can drive a manual or not. If it doesn’t say anything, then it doesn’t qualify.

That’s exactly the point: If there’s no way to differentiate, the country is free to say “welp, that’s your problem. Your license doesn’t specify manual, so no manual for you.”

Luckily you can always fall back to a handbrake start if you need to, I’ll usually always do that if I’m driving a car I’m not at all used to and find myself in an uphill start.

You might want to check the details here: I know that in some European countries, you’ll have trouble renting a car at all with an American license unless you pass a driving test in a European country first to get certified. In fact, in several countries I don’t think an American license is valid at all until you pass a test. It’s probably worth checking out the details for Romania.

I don’t really think there’s any “generally” here: It differs quite a bit between countries. I believe in some countries they won’t allow you to drive a manual unless your license specifies it (i.e. an American license isn’t valid for a manual).

For that exact reason some countries (my country included) don’t accept an American license unless you do a test here first.

Though IIRC, that applies for both manuals and automatics, because American drivers education isn’t really trusted here.

I just want to underscore the crucial part of the monarch being apolitical. I believe the only Norwegian citizens that cannot vote are the royal family (whether by tradition or law I’m not sure).

I think it definitely has an effect of bringing cohesion and stability to a country that you have a formal head of state, or a “personification” of the nation, that is not tied to any political party. One thing is in foreign diplomacy, another thing is in bringing the country together during a crisis. In the latter case, the monarch is a figurehead that everyone can gather around, regardless of political affiliation.

Loudly cheer them on and clap when they finish.

Who dictates what’s stupid? Where does the sanity end and crazy name start?

Sanity ends when the name has an objectively high likelihood of causing the child harm, or otherwise severely hindering them in life. For example, naming your child “Hitler”, or “<insert slur of choice>” is objectively likely to be harmful to them. Likewise, naming them “Helicopter” or “Rollercoaster” is very likely to set them back in life through childhood bullying.

Who dictates this? In all countries I’m aware of that have laws around this: A government body of some kind.

Plenty of countries have this. Examples of forbidden names are “Hitler”, “Asshole”, “<Insert demeaning word here>”, and “Quisling” (name of a Nazi collaborator, commonly used as a synonym for “traitor” in daily speech).

The point is that “stupid” is defined as a name that is objectively likely to severely negatively impact the child. It’s not based on “I think X sounds stupid” but on whether “X” carries significant cultural baggage like being the name of a famous Nazi, a slur of some kind, etc.

These two are not interchangeable or really even comparable though? Make is a program that generates non-source files from source files, cmake is a high-level tool to generate makefiles.

If you’re writing anything more than a completely trivial makefile I would heavily recommend learning cmake. It makes your build system much, much more robust, far easier to maintain, much more likely to work on other systems than your own, and far easier to integrate with other dependent projects.

My primary experience with plain make was when I re-wrote a 2000+ line make-system in a project I maintain with about 200 lines of cmake, because we were setting up some CI that required us to clone and build some dependencies, which was an absolutely PITA to handle cross-platform with plain make, but was trivial with cmake.

PS. The cmake docs suck for anyone that hasn’t used cmake for 10 years already.

I don’t mean to say that C++ is in any way without faults. If performance is crucial, that can definitely be a reason to forgo some of the guard-rails, and then you’re on your own.

I guess my issue with the “C++ is unsafe”-trope, is that it usually (in my experience) comes from people not having heard of all the guard-rails in the first place, or refusing to use them when appropriate. They write C++ as if they were writing C, and then complain that the language is unsafe when they’ve made a mistake that is easily avoided using stl-containers.