Lots of new/recent native MacOS releases nowadays: https://store.steampowered.com/macos

You'll have to embrace the `ccc` compiler first, lol

Does it mean that your db adapter isn't necessarily DBAPI (PEP-249) compliant? That is, it could be that DBAPI exception hierarchy isn't respected, so that middlewares that expect to work across the stack and catch all DB-related issues, may not work if the underlying DB access stack is using your drivers?

> but F() is still stringly-typed. Room for improvement there.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure F() isn't needed. You can look at how sqlalchemy implements combinator-style API around field attributes:

    import sqlalchemy as sa
    from sqlalchemy.orm import DeclarativeBase


    class Base(sa.orm.DeclarativeBase):
        pass

    class Stats(Base):
        __tablename__ = "stats"

        id = sa.Column(sa.Integer, primary_key=True)
        views = sa.Column(sa.Integer, nullable=False)

    print(Stats.views + 1)

not really, what makes sense is being JIT-able and friendly to PyPy.

> Type safety was a big motivation.

> https://oxyde.fatalyst.dev/latest/guide/expressions/#basic-u...

> F("views") + 1

If your typed query sub-language can't avoid stringly references to the field names already defined by the schema objects, then it's the lost battle already.

> My understanding is there was a genuine desire for diplomacy on the American side.

> A case you've sustained by being unable to find any credible sources

Correction: you were unable to find any credible sources, that could be your intentional bias though, as there are other patterns in your replies that suggest it too.

Also, you didn't apply the principle, you sought external validation to your preferred understanding. You appeal to external voices because there's the evident apprehension to come to inconvenient conclusions if you begin applying the principle uniformly by using your own mind.

Actually, let's see it live. Please provide the line of reasoning, starting with "If the US diplomats' job is to stall and never make any actual concessions to Iran, then ..."

> there was a genuine desire for diplomacy on the American side

By the way, how does that "genuine desire" manifest in reality? I hope it's not "I got those people in front of me extra five minutes to get lost and free my way home"

ok, let's see

> do you have a source? The fact that nobody in this subthread has an answer to this and is instead, as you put it, evading the question by getting distracted by whether America is negotiating in good faith should speak volumes to anyone reading this.

No it shouldn't, there's no substance in your position, let alone volumes of any meaning to derive from it: "the other side must be acting in bad faith, because I don't like getting home late".

First off, I'm waiting for you to apply your previously stated principle, that you admitted to be general, to Iranian diplomats' negotiating track. And right after that, let's discuss why you did omit commenting on the other part with the substitutions around "giving in to America or Iran" and the respective interest groups having to save face.

I, as a barefoot landlord, am still wondering: why do you think your timings and preferences are the only ones to be respected?

ok, you evaded the answer, I asked specifically about generality of the principle, you kept saying "the US did this, Iran did that". You're stalling and refusing to tell the actual answer on the question I asked, so that's germane.

> I haven't seen anything in any English, European or Asian sources that seemed to suggest they were.

too bad, get better with search

> Negotiating in good faith means negotiating with a genuine intent to reach a deal. That requires acknowledging what the other side is saying and respecting reality. Someone can intentionally bullshit. Or they can be forced to bullshit because their regime at home has to save face and doesn't think it can survive being seen as giving in to America.

Negotiating in good faith means negotiating with a genuine intent to reach a deal. That requires acknowledging what the other side is saying and respecting reality. Someone can intentionally bullshit. Or they can be forced to bullshit because their political leaders at home have to save face before their donors and don't think they can survive elections being seen as giving in to Iran.

> Bad analogy. Here's a better one: you're my landlord and I'm your tenant. (Ignoring the power imbalance between Iran and America, particularly when America is parking warships, is delusional.) You say I have ten minutes to plead for not being evicted. I genuinely don't think I did anything wrong. But I spend ten minutes talking about why your shoes are stupid. That's not engaging in good faith.

Bad analogy, I walk barefoot and I don't talk to tenants, my representatives do and they end the contract with you on a legal basis of contractual terms and that's about it. That's my property after all.

Now, you in turn are still standing in a traffic jam and getting angry at me and people around you, you claim that we all don't respect your preferences and timings, so we must be acting in bad faith.

Just answer the question whether it applies in general as a principle. Don't "stall and never tell any actual" position on the matter.

> We also had the option to terminate negotiations, ratchet up sanctions and walk away. None of that changes that the Iranians weren't negotiating in good faith

Only according to you, based on the premise that someone didn't meet random timings that only exist in your head.

> But the lack of any discussion of what Iran did in this subthread seems to underline my point

not really, please answer the initial question I asked.

> They aren't obligated to accept the other's timeline. But I wouldn't say that's negotiating in good faith.

Exactly why? You need to be home around 5 so anyone standing in front of you and blocking you in a traffic jam aren't acting in good faith?

does this line of reasoning apply to the US only, or in general?

> My understanding is there was a genuine desire for diplomacy on the American side. But at least this round, Tehran never conceded on any material fronts.

they had an option to do it and still continue a diplomatic track, they aren't obliged to devote themselves to the US preferences at the US-preferred pace.