> Even if Trump's approach is worse than Biden's, which I'm not sure of, that still does not mean it is bad for the country.

But the discussion isn't about whether it's bad, but whether it's in the countries best interest. If you switch to a less effective & more damaging policy compared to your predecessor, it's not in the countries best interest, even if it's (supposedly) better than nothing.

Funny how often I've read this exact comment today.

From a developer perspective you're obviously correct, but from a user perspective it doesn't make sense that the tool discards information, especially when competing tools don't do that.

Of course as a developer that makes it all the more impressive - kudos to the team for making such big progress, I can't wait to play around with all the new improvements!

Cropping IS a destructive operation. If the program isn't throwing information away, then it doesn't actually do cropping, but some different operation instead.

From a user perspective I wouldn't like it, if I were to crop something and the data would be still there afterwards. That would be a data leak waiting to happen.

I genuinely can't empathize with this objection. To me it's basically the same as arguing against Undo/Redo in a text editor because someone could come along and press Undo on my keyboard after I've deleted sensitive data.

What percentage of users sends around raw project files from which they've cropped out sensitive data to users who shouldn't see that data, vs. what percentage of users ever wants to adjust the crop after applying other filters? The latter is basically everyone, the earlier I'm guessing at most 1%?

but nobody argues against undo/redo in gimp!

going by your text editor analogy, we are arguing against implementing undo/redo as a "non-destructive delete", based on adding backspace control characters within the text file. I want infinitw undo/redo, but i also want that when I delete a character it is really gone, not hidden!

Sorry, but I still don't see it - the text editor analogy is stretched far too thin. If I share a project file, I want the other user to see all this stuff. If I don't want them to see all this stuff, I send them an export.

It would be a true shame if every useful feature was left out due to 1% of use cases becoming slightly different.

Which agreement are you referring to? The commonly cited 2% agreement that I'm aware of was for 2025 - which all members reached. When was Europe ever non-compliant?

It's part of the conditions for NATO membership. Oh and to have 4% as a target.

Of course they have renegotiated, and so now the target is 2% by 2027, with all historical arrears forgiven, and several countries have already publicly announced they agreed to it, won't do it (Ireland and Spain I'm aware of, I doubt they're the only ones)

You could also see this as most countries joining, promising to do this starting in 1949. Not even in the first years did most countries do this (except France). So most countries are let's generously say 1% of GDP in arrears, for 75 years now ...

> It's part of the conditions for NATO membership. Oh and to have 4% as a target.

Could you please share where the 2% were defined in the requirements since 1949, and where the 4% are currently defined?

As I already stated, the 2% requirement I'm aware of was negotiated in 2014, to be reached by the end of 2024. If this is indeed where the 2% come from, it's obviously completely ridiculous to act like the member countries didn't meet the requirements - it wasn't a requirement of the treaty they signed!

So yes, you're talking about the target of 2% by 2025. Why are you saying that the countries didn't comply with the target, when they did?

If the US wanted the 2% target to be met before then, you should have negotiated an earlier deadline. Don't agree to one deadline and then cry because an arbitrary earlier one hasn't been met.

I keep trying the "native" solutions every so often, but every time I quickly hit some snag that makes me question why I'm not just using the solution that actually works. As an example, I just generated a new project using create-vite & added two subpath imports:

    {
        // ...
        "imports": {
            "#assets/*": "./src/assets/*",
            "#/*": "./src/*"
        },
        // ...
    }

The second one (#/*) is similar enough to what I usually use (@/*), and it's supported in Node since v25.4.0! Yet when I try to import the file at projectRoot/src/router/index.ts using:

    import router from "#/router/index"

VS Code shows an error: "Cannot find module '#/router/index' or its corresponding type declarations."

Now, imports from e.g. "#assets/main.css" work, so I could work around this issue - but this is what I keep experiencing: the native variant usually kinda works except for the most common use case, which is made unnecessarily awkward. For a long time this is what ESM used to feel like, and IMO it still does in places (e.g. directory imports not working is a shame).

You need Typescript 6 for that too: https://devblogs.microsoft.com/typescript/announcing-typescr...

I'm confused myself. I have one project that uses package json aliased imports and TS doesn't complain. Then another where it does.

I take Grokipedia very seriously as a threat to society. Sure, they're happy if people read it and fall for - but the primary goal is not to convince humans, but to influence search results of current models & to poison the training data of future models. ChatGPT (and most likely other models/providers too) is already using Grokipedia as a source, so unless you're aware of the possibility and always careful, you might be served Musks newest culture war ideas without ever being the wiser.

It's not enough that everyone on Twitter is forced to read his thoughts, he's trying to make sure his influence reaches everyone else too.

I've seen Claude pick it up too. It's disconcerting.

There's more than enough of them to materially affect election outcomes. The number of votes you'd have to change to flip the outcome of the last few elections was very small, and the parties have a very good idea of which locations they'd have to disturb to achieve the greatest effect.

Now imagine you're a voter who shows any signal of potentially being Dem-aligned - for example a slightly darker complexion, or maybe dyed hair. On your way to the polling station, masked ICE goons "scan your face" with their AI apps, and the apps tell them you're illegal, so they put you into a van and drive you to a holding facility.

What recourse do you have? Even if they let you go the next day, you've lost your vote. And that's not a given, what if they hold you for weeks or months? How many people have others who depend on them, so they can't risk this?

I don't mean to sound dramatic, but if anything like this happens (and there's basically no way it won't) the fascist takeover is complete, and your only recourse left is civil war.

Yet somehow we don't need a similar reminder for the possibility of fossil fuel power plants running out of fuel after a short time if not regularly restocked. Why is it worth bringing up one, but not the other?

"Rank and file" employees choosing to prioritize morality very, very frequently pay real costs for doing so - with a much larger personal impact than executives feel.

Only in very rare circumstances where the obvious answer and their procedural work dont align.

When making an operational decision that affects the direction of the business, morality is almost always a concern -- even at the level of "do our customers benefit from this vs., do we?" etc.

Where do you get the idea that those circumstances are "very rare"? Workers are being asked to break rules and do unethical things all the time, and you're pretty much guaranteed to pay a personal cost if you refuse.

Meanwhile morality is almost always one of least important factors when making operational decisions.