> Cat, Dog and Bird don't have to inherit from the union, you can declare a union of completely random types, as opposed to saying "Animal has three subtypes, no more, no less"

"Animal has three subtypes" is more like the c# "sealed" modifier on a class, meaning that subtyping is not allowed. Except in this case I guess for three existing subtypes.

  var someUser = new { Name = "SideburnsOfDoom", CommentValue = 3 };

A type can be given at compile-time in a declaration, or generated at compile-time by the compiler like this. But it is still "Compiler-verified" and not ad-hoc or at runtime.

the type (Dog, Cat) pet seems similar, it's known at compile-time and won't change. A type without a usable name is still a type.

Is this "ad-hoc"? It depends entirely on what you mean by that.

To me that "compiler-verified" maps to "sealed", not "on the fly". Probably.

Their example is:

public union Pet(Cat, Dog, Bird);

Pet pet = new Cat("Whiskers");

- the union type is declared upfront, as is usually the case in c#. And the types that it contains are a fixed set in that declaration. Meaning "sealed" ?

My apologies, that was poorly worded - I didn't mean to imply that all energy prices were low across the board. Of course they are not.

It's an interesting indicator, not (yet) a systemic change. And as I said in answer to the parent comment, it's a important subject right now because of the petrochemical price shock.

Nevertheless, if I were to interpret your statement as unilaterally as you interpreted mine: you said "negative prices are not low prices", which is wrong as a matter of arithmetic.

The the popular European sentiment is understandable and IMHO correct though. Saying "it's off-putting" is no in way a coherent argument that it's wrong.

IDK, if someone sees that a question is bullshit and refuses to play along with it, you lose respect for them? This is not a heuristic that will help you in life.

You're not saying that it's wrong though. Just that you don't like it. So what, that means nothing. It's not wrong. Rejecting reality because it's "off-putting" will not help you.

I think that it's understood that when we use shorthand such as "US is not supporting Ukraine" that it is the respective governments that we are discussing. The point about the "majority of Americans" is true enough (though you might say that the majority of Americans care about the price of gasoline and groceries and little else politically) but it is rather irrelevant if the administration does the opposite.

In other words, "thoughts and prayers from people" is not enough to make you an ally. Money and policy is the real thing.

Right, Short of unconditional surrender, it is very hard for one party in a war to just end it without the other side also agreeing to cease. Otherwise, walking away just lets them target your back.

That is happening, only with "EU" not "America". Because the EU are Ukraine's allies.

https://kyivindependent.com/ukraine-to-open-10-weapons-expor...

https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-to-open-arms-factory...

https://euobserver.com/209049/eu-signs-off-on-e260m-grant-fo...

As for the US being Ukrainian allies as compared to EU, well: https://kyivindependent.com/us-military-aid-to-ukraine-dropp...

While neither of us have any special insight into that, and no-one has certainty, I urge you to read the essay linked, as this topic is in fact discussed with historic examples. "There is a frequent mistake, often from folks who deal in economics, to assume that countries will give up on wars when the economics turn bad ... There is a great deal of ruin in a nation."

You are right that the the Iranian regime's short and longer term goals align. But, happenstance or not, they are aligned and likely will stay that way.

https://acoup.blog/2026/03/25/miscellanea-the-war-in-iran/

> This is the second sudden bombing campaign the country has suffered in as many years – they do not want there to be a third next year and a fourth the year after that. But promises not to bomb them don’t mean a whole lot: establishing deterrence here means inflicting quite a lot of pain. In practice, if Iran wants future presidents not to repeat this war, the precedent they want to set is "attacking Iran is a presidency-ending mistake." And to do that, well, they need to end a presidency or at least make clear they could have done.

Can they do that: yes, keep Hormuz shut until much closer to November, and "the economic and political fallout will be too big."

There are a lot of funerals in chapter 1 of Tom Wolfe's book, "The Right Stuff".

I suggest that some choice of profession come with a higher life-risk tolerance than others. "Accountants willing to risk their lives for the job" would be news. Firefighters, less so. Test pilots or astronauts, not much at all.

> Don't get me wrong, this is a enthusiast car

Right, it's about as commercially appealing as a Sinclair C5.