hvidgaard

> But statically typed complied languages do not provide an inherently better programming paradigm than dynamic programming.

For any large long lived project with multiple contributors, statically type analysis definitely adds value by eliminating an entire class of errors at compile time.

The Russians knew of this rule, so I doubt they are surprised. If the new owners are approved they will get control back.

Did you even read the article?

> Germany's economy minister announced the seizure in a statement on Monday. The move came after the ministry of economic affairs learned that Gazprom Germania had been acquired by JSC Palmary and Gazprom export business services LLC — but it wasn't clear who the owners behind the two companies were, per the statement.

> Germany's economy ministry justified the takeover by saying it had not granted permission for the Gazprom Germania acquisition. Permission is required, the ministry said, if the investors are not from the European Union and "critical infrastructure" is involved.

It's a very simple example and knowing that addition is commutative, it's obvious that there is no ordering.

I usually go about it differently than hold off coding. I do try to understand the problem fully before I implement anything. I try to figure out what abstractions make the most sense and what to optimize for. Then I write a preliminary implementation and almost without fail I learn something new that changes the parameters of the "problem". Scrap it and do it again just with more knowledge. No amount of analysing and understanding up front have produced a better or faster result for me.

> The less affluent citizens who didn't attend higher education are paying for us who did attend. This is usually motivated by the idea that society as a whole benefits from us educated people so much that they should pay for it. I find this idea a bit offensive.

The data supports the claim. A higher educated citizen generate more tax and in general use less money in the healthcare system. It's a net surplus to pay for the education, so the "less affluent" citizens are not paying for anything. At least that is what the Danish government claims.

> would actually prefer a system financed purely by student loans. It does put a lot more responsibility on the prospective student to judge the quality of an education programme and the opportunities it affords. Some programmes would no longer be sustainable if they were not given free of charge.

This is rather simple to correct for. If the unemployment is high for a given education it can be reduced. It is in Denmark.

That would be infeasible for cold storage.

Which is a very good way to cut down the money spend on things.

You only need to state to what extend and period the information is stored in backups, and have a process in place to purge it again in case of a restore.

I agree, either compare at the same size or the same perceptual quality. I know the latter is subjective, but in this case the JPEG is significantly higher quality.

I will absolute do what I can to grow employees. But they have to want to do that. Not all employees want to climb the ladder. They do not want to become a manager, they do not want the responsibility that comes with lead or architect roles. That does not mean they cannot grow in their position. You can always improve your coding, automated testing, devops, not to say soft skills, learn a new framework etc.

Chemistry is complex enough that layman cannot make any assumptions. For all we know stainless steel and carbon steel have higher content than the cast iron, but leach less because it's far more stable.

I like growing employees, but I'd be lying if it said I didn't put immense value on the great employees that are content where they are with what they're doing. They're dependable and they mean I have some form of "old guard" that really knows a system inside out without going through documentation or experimenting. That is very valuable.

Apart from invoking it in writing, I think such manoeuvres go through a lawyer, which a court will usually accept them as stating the truth about when an offer was send and received. I'm also sure the clause have some text about how long the other founder has to answer and how long they have to come up with the money if they decide to switch it around.

That assumes that the founders have enough intimate knowledge of the other founders personal financial situation. They clearly risk becoming a victim of it them if the other founder can find enough money.

If a company is clearly worth more than the offer, finding outside investment or even traditional financing through the bank shouldn't pose that much of an issue.