How about you first?

Would be the far more polite version of my response. Not violent, but a lot less diplomatic.

I’m pretty sure the crack head living in the woods down the road is a better trading partner than Trump.

Honestly it amazes me that no one has given some Houthis a few drones and set them loose in Palm Beach on the weekend. And that they haven’t done it themselves. Trump is out here setting up WW3 and playing golf on weekends, in an impossible to secure location.

I get why no one would do it directly, that’d be a nuclear fire death wish. But it surprises me no one has slipped in a few patsies to even attempt it.

National parks have squat for cell coverage.

Putin is out of infrastructure targets, and is worried about his refineries getting drone strikes. This isn’t a cease fire, it’s just a protection agreement for Putin.

Large parts of US car manufacturing went to Canada over the years as Detroit rotted. The problem is that tariffs won’t bring it back, it will just bankrupt the car companies. Which is fine for Musk, not so much for everyone else.

Not disagreeing at all. It’s the standard right wing mode of operation, nothing matters until it affects them personally. It should be studied as a developmental disability.

Since Trump wants to complain about the trade deficit, Canada should cap exports to be equal to imports from the US. Poof no more trade deficit.

Honestly he’s even doing it for the right reasons. His country has been economically attacked. Not to respond would just make it worse.

New air frames tend to have a lot of issues. They’re kind of at the limits of engineering complexity. Too many parts optimized for weight/strength just perfectly, until there’s that one extra side load, or power drain, that no one expected. That’s why a lot of test designs end at the full scale testing stage. It’s not until all the parts are in one place that you can really see if they all work together.

In the long term, it will mean America will have a weaker position at every bargaining table. From trade deals, to immigration, to military engagement. And sure, in a lot, if not most cases, that’s better for the world. For the US it will mean more hardship and more poverty, leading to more crime, leading to more right wing extremism. And unlike unwinding the Soviet Union, when America unwinds, there’s going to be and axis of China and Russia waiting to step on everyone else. Russia isn’t building enough guns to defeat Ukraine, they’re aiming to build enough to defeat Europe. And they know they couldn’t do it if America were there as a back stop. He’s also counting on the EU being too afraid to send nukes.

Uh oh, someone woke up the vikings.

It’s positive for the rest of the world, not so much for America.

Pretty sure he was already a puppet, that was just the rimming of the ring.

EDIT: Speaking of which, does anyone know if Marina Gross is still actually alive? I get not wanting media attention etc, but she seems like a ghost for someone that translates for world leaders.

So your use cases for regex are when you’re not going to actually fix the problem that caused you to need regex?

I’m saying if your use case makes regex the best option, you’ve gone the wrong way and should turn back. There are definitely corners you can paint yourself into that make it the way to go, but you’ve ended up there through a series of bad ideas.

Turns out the million hours of coding put into SQL, makes it a better option than regex, even for xml based files.

If you’re needing that level of complexity in a text file search, you already fucked up by putting the data in a text file. There’s a reason data file formats exist.

Never debug regex, just generate a new one. It’s not worth the hassle to figure out not only what it does, but what it was meant to do.

Better yet, just write it out in code, and never use regex. Tis a stupid thing that never should have been made.

I think it’s a time share with China