Leaving aside that I am skeptical millions of Ukrainians sincerely believe the devil has been launching missiles at them from the northeast (regardless of what you write here)... it's rather hypocritical to speak for millions of Ukrainians and then tell me to only speak for myself, don't you think?

Can't speak for iOS and no idea if this relates to the above functionality, but Pixel lets you deduplicate notifications across Pixel devices.

For an app that prides itself on privacy, it's kind of crazy that you're making it so easy to accidentally blow it.

Pretty sure they used "ripped off" correctly: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/rip-o...

- WinForms applications also took visibly longer to load than Win32. I didn't dread loading them nearly as much as WPF, yes, but I still did. They weren't what I'd call "snappy", but they were... usable enough.

- WinForms also stuttered (in my experience) with the GC. Again, not "snappy" in my experience, but this was more dependent on your use case.

- WinForms were .NET 2.0 rather than .NET 3.0, with fewer modules to load. It certainly felt more lightweight, which from my memory (of how the hard disk behaved) correlated with that.

You're still confused, unfortunately. (Note: In everything that follows, I'm just pretending "Arabic numerals" came from Arabic. The actual history is more complicated but irrelevant to my point, so let's go with that.)

First, you're confusing intuitive with logical. They are not the same thing. e.g, survivorship bias (look up the whole WWII plane thing) is unintuitive, but extremely logical.

Second, even arguing intuitiveness here doesn't really make sense, because the direction of writing numerals is itself intrinsically arbitrary. If our writing system was such that a million dollars was written as "000,000,1$", suddenly you wouldn't find big-endian any more intuitive.

In fact, if you were an Arabic speaker and your computer was in Arabic (right to left) rather than English (left to right), then your hex editor would display right-to-left on the screen, and you would already find little-endian intuitive!

In other words, the only reason you find this unintuitive is that you speak English, which is (by unfortunate historical luck) written in "big-endian" form! Note that this has nothing to do with being right-to-left but left-to-right, but rather with whether the place values increase or decrease in the same direction as the prose. In Arabic, place values increase in the direction of the prose, which makes little-endian entirely intuitive to an Arabic speaker!

To put it another way, arguing LE is unintuitive is like claiming something being right-handed is somehow more intuitive than left-handed. If that's true, it's because you're used to being right-handed, not because right-handedness itself is somehow genuinely more intuitive. (And neither of these has anything to do with one being more or less logical than the other.)

Every WPF program was laggy and took ages to even start up (is everyone forgetting hard disk speeds?), partly due to it being managed code. The components didn't feel native either, and the coupling to managed code and garbage collection basically ensured all those would be perpetual issues. Yeah the programming model was beautiful and all, but you're supposedly developing to make your customers happy, not to make yourself or computer scientists happy.

You can see how terrible it would've been to base Windows's shell on WPF by looking at how much users have loved the non-Win32 windows since then.

> It is usually easy to write code that is endian-safe. Any code that is not endian-safe is poorly written and harder to maintain at best, and possibly obscuring security bugs at worst. Any project maintainer should be jumping for joy when they receive a patch adding a big-endian port of their project, especially if it includes reports that tests pass and the software works. That is the sign of a codebase that has a level of sanity that should not be noteworthy, yet is.

And every single sentence is false.

The tower collapses once you remove any of the bases, let alone all of them.

This sounds confused. The "order" of bits is only an artifact of our human notation, not some inherent order. If you look at how an integer is implemented in hardware (say in a register or in combinational logic), you're not going to find the bits being reversed every byte.

So... it is written down...

Notice the president isn't even mentioned. [1] And it even says all enemies, foreign and domestic. The oath is 100% unambiguous and crystal clear that in the event that the president becomes an enemy of the constitution, you defend the constitution, not the president.

> but there is a lot more than its written nature

We're not playing no-true-Scotsman here, right? There are always going to be more factors both in favor and against such a position than any human can enumerate ahead of time. This in no way contradicts anything I wrote.

>>> definition of a constitution

>> The lack of arbitrary rule... is emphatically not [a defining feature]

> I guess it depends on whether you (or most reasonable people) would call countries like Russia a 'constitutional republic'

No, the fact that Russia has a constitution doesn't depend on what I (or most reasonable people) may call Russia or its form of government at all.

> I strongly suspect it is debatable within the field and comes down (like so many things) to how you define your terms.

Russia has a constitution, end of story. There's even a Wikipedia article on it! [2]

If you believe otherwise, just assert "Russia doesn't have a constitution" directly. No need to dive into the debate over whether "Russia is a constitutional republic" when Russia clearly has a constitution. Of course, you're not going to claim it doesn't have a constitution (otherwise you already would've), which... well, I rest my case.

> Do you define 'constitutional' as attaching more to the codified and written nature of any rules

I'm not defining "constitutional" (adjective), whose definition comes in conjunction with the noun following it. I am merely defining "constitution", which is a simple noun. Recall that the sentence I was originally replying to -- word for word -- was: "there is absolutely a Constitution in the UK." Not "the UK is a constitutional ." That's all. The debate is not over anything that involves the following the word "constitutional". The dispute is over whether the UK has a constitution, and in that debate, it is indisputable that e.g. Russia indeed has a constitution, whether it is well-followed or not, or whether we like it or not.

I think what's becoming pretty clear that people just really desperately want to say the UK has a constitution regardless of how many contortions of the definition of "constitution" that requires, because... well, a constitution is a good thing, the UK sees its form of government as good, so of course it must have a good basis. (Global virtue-signaling, I guess?) Which I find ironic, because a good constitution-less government would be something to be proud of, not something embarrassing to avoid.

If this is hard to wrestle with, consider this: imagine a world where the UK was the same as it is today, but everything else was flipped. i.e. the US & every other country that has a constitution was suffering, and every other monarchy was flourishing. Do you really believe the experts "in the field" would still be arguing the UK has a constitution today, or would they just stick with calling it a monarchy and vehemently deny any constitution existing? It's pretty obvious to me the answer is the latter, but of course, I can't prove anything about an alternate timeline.

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3331

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Russia

If you want a list of actual subsystems Windows recognizes, this should be pretty accurate:

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/debug/pe-for...

The real reason for calling it a subsystem was almost entirely for familiarity with the previous concept of running Linux programs on Windows, which were based on that subsystem feature (the POSIX subsystem and the Subsystem for UNIX-based Applications).

Legally? The fact that everybody under the president -- including those in the military -- understand they are swearing their oath to the constitution -- not the King, not the Crown, not God, not the Supreme Court, not anything else. And that the Supreme Court says what the constitution means. And that if there is a clear and direct contradiction between the Supreme Court and the president, the former trumps (no pun intended) the latter.

Physically? "Nothing", yeah. Same goes for non-presidents. If you can get enough people to follow you (or maybe at least enough of the people with guns) everything else becomes irrelevant, including whether your title was president or King or God or Constitution or whatever.

> The lack of arbitrary rule is a defining feature of both

It is emphatically not. There are lots of countries with constitutions that nevertheless have arbitrary rule. As there are countries without constitutions or arbitrary rule.

> They are so similar as to be almost the same and if an 'indisputable source of truth' exists anywhere, it is not in the written documents or their structure but unwritten norms and rituals sit beneath both.

No, that's exactly what those are not. Unwritten stories, traditions, and rituals are very much disputable. That's kind of the entire point of writing things down, and the point of the game we call Telephone. The indisputable bits are physical artifacts everyone can see with their own eyes.

You can't just brush it aside as some quibble about definitions. It's a fundamentally substantive difference in the two structures: one of these has an indisputable source of truth (a foundation everyone can witness) that everything else is built on top of -- however shakily! -- and the other does not. Regardless of whether you include the upper parts of this metaphorical building in your definitions or not, the foundations are not the same.

> No, it's a living thing. Why is this your sticking point on the existence of a constitution or not?

Do you never write down or sign contracts? Are verbal promises adequate for you in all transactions?

If you don't see the value of laws being written down - especially the most important ones! - I can't really convince you of it here on HN.

But what I can tell is that most people who care about the legitimacy of government believe it is fundamental to fairness that there be a single source of truth that can tell them the laws under which they would be rewarded or punished, before those happen.