I'm not going to address whether what happened was completely right, or the merits of the underlying discussion. But this is not a case of a poor dirt farmer shocked at being arrested. I'd be very surprised myself if he didn't at least think that was a possible outcome (and would not presume to suggest that it was intended in any way whatsoever, obviously being arrested would be detrimental to his cause!).

One of the things I forget to give thanks to the Rust designers for is the default of immutability. I remember my days in a Java environment where policy was "everything needs to be declared final" (so "final" got spattered all over the place) with zero nostalgia. Requiring TCE callees to explicitly represent themselves as TCE-friendly would be the same sort of abomination.

The compiler is free to do something clever (eg., two versions of fn Foo(...), one guaranteeing TCE), but as a developer merely using Foo, I don't want to have to decorate it (or, in a library, have it already decorated) to make TCE (not just TCO) possible. That requirement would constitute delving into the internals.

I suppose maybe TCE (as distinct from TCO) should be expanded to include any mechanism that doesn't expand the stack / heap / whatever for things that rhyme with recursion (in which case the existing sloppiness may as well stand, but we need a new TLA).

Article does not seem to mention whether the bus pulls into the secured area (so that you don't have to go through the security stuff again). The smaller airport is a nice option (same security, but smaller so less congestion and lineup).

JRandomCustomer enters street-number, apt-number, city, state, code ... in that order.

Also, many websites seem to have a negotiation with the browser, where, given: a street address, -> they can populate the other fields.

Definitely not perfect

What will you pay me for a day of my time?

At this point, they've already invested their resources (and also you, yours).

If employed, then it's easy to point out that that's your cost in a vacation/PTO/"sick" day.

If not, point out that you are not currently working at mickydee so your time is worth more than minimum wage. If they stick at that, make out a reasonable guess at their cost of this process and point out that a day of your time is not a massive additional fraction. If they stick at that, ask if this means you are on the "short list", and how many others are on it. If they stick at that, then you have useful information about what they think you are worth and are likely to offer.

This does assume some flexibility, and leverage.

This is going back on other posts (in particular, this one: https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/the-long-shadow-of-ch...), where he (correctly, I think) suggests that today's payment systems move risk to the parties most capable of assessing and (if necessary) absorbing it.

This post seems to throw seniors with cognitive issues under the bus ("That decision has a cost. Grandma sometimes pays it.").

Now it does seem that he is being careful in some phrasings. I see it as possible (but only with multiple readings) that he is in fact critical of the current regulatory regime.

For instance, the paragraph beginning "It is the ordinary and appropriate..." suggests that it's not 'we the people' but 'we the corporates', but that can't be said upfront.

Maybe that phrase that rankles is a call to action...?

Question for this community: am I misreading this?

Oh, it's the graphical terminal program (alternative to 'gnome-terminal'). Well, um, ok.

However, I will concede, after more digging as to why (as it rankled), that there was a "have to choose a unique name" issue there (even leaving aside trademark issues). I'm resigned (so I suppose signed up) to deal with residual issues that crop up going forward.

I love to mock '*ly.com' names for almost certainly doomed enterprises, but I get that at least it wasn't already taken.

I do have concerns about 'send them to China', since I think that that would be another display zoo with no qualms about continuing exploitation.

I don't like option three, and the reports I've seen (Guardian but also CBC etc) suggest that rewilding is off the table. I'd be ok with "the people of Canada will take care of the whales, but your business is your problem". I'd be ok with proving this point even if someone claims that the existing business could do it cheaper. A separate sanctuary would make clear that 'we care about the animals, but not your business plan as it relates to the public purse', to establish a policy.

If it is really the case that option 1 (china) is considered ongoing torture, and option three is unaffordable/unimplementable, then I guess that option 2 (euthanizing) is a front runner.

That's a lovely thought!

I have dealings with Gen(xyzqbvwhatever) that don't respond to the 'more considerate forms' in a timely fashion. So after a grace period, I jangle the bell.

I get the other side of this. I get a ping for a message while driving, I can't do anything about it (distracted driving etc). So I either pull over (or turn off the highway altogether), or resolve to deal with it at my destination.

Nine times out of ten, if I pull off, it's an urgent notification that 1) my screen time is up by 17 minutes, 2) Second Cousin in Arkansas reposted a message about another missing cat, or 3) your soliac serucity number has been supsedned, CLICK HERE NOW TO AVOID ARREST AND JAIL.

However, when I get to the destination, I forgot that I got a ping.

Sometimes I think that the best option is to toss the cellphone, so that nobody has illusions about how (not) to contact me.

(over and above "why have you allowed me to waste so much time on this" --- wry grin)

But ban checked baggage fees, that's what's driving the carry-on mania.

Or, mandate fee-free one but not both...?