The fact that they u-turned on so many policies the second Trump got into power shows otherwise. Not to mention the owner of X was Trumps right hand man for the first 6 months post-election.
That's the wrong analogy, because the butcher is giving money to the baker for the bread. If we we fix the analogy, then the baker gives money to the butcher so that he buys their bread with that money. The butcher cannot afford the bread without it!
I think there's a good chance it is. Not out in the sun, not in contact with ground/moisture, pretty consistent temperature. Wood can last a very long time under those conditions.
It could be. A lot of wood has been around for longer than that. Wood is easier to damage so I expect some has been replaced over the years, but there is no reason to think it wouldn't last in that application.
Oh man being able to pick the time range is awesome. I hate hate hate standard financial data tables and how they just show you "today's performance". Absolutely useless, nobody in retail cares outside of gambling day traders. How is it that even giants like Fidelity can't get this right? I need to be able to see my portfolio's performance over the last month, year, 5 years!
Yes, it’s updating now. Ctrl-F this thread and search for ‘365’ and you’ll see that it was not changing for several hours despite donations rolling in.
Correct, and this is the latest in a serious of decisions made by Türkiye which imperil NATO's collective defense.
Rare earths are vital for military equipment. This action is coming from a country that NATO has trusted with its best technology and they continue to flirt with both Russia and China, NATO's primary threats.
Do you see how my comment is about the impact on NATO's ability to wage war? What if Türkiye begins sharing military secrets with China? They are working with China on the mine referenced in the article. They are not trustworthy.
I can only laugh at this statement. There are way many events where usa did act like an not trustworthy. Maybe you should start asking questions like “why my allies seeking external alliances, am I doing something wrong”
Python's type system is the problem here, which cannot support even the native dataclass pattern and needs custom plugins written for each type checker.
The type system’s alright. It just gets especially tricky when you’re trying to check code which won’t exist until you run it. For instance, suppose you wanted to load your own module from a database with something like
foo = eval(result)
It can’t know what you’re going to load until it actually does it.
Things which lean heavily into metaprogramming, typically ORMs or things like Pydantic, fall into that category. I can’t hold that against the type system.
I think we should. Dataclasses have existed in Python for an extremely long time, and yet the type system doesn't support defining your own similar classes. Kwargs have also existed forever, but they forgot to support that and had to add TypedDict's much later. And it still doesn't properly support optional fields. There's a lot of stuff like this in the language which are unbelievably frustrating, because for some reason they implemented the syntax before implementing a typechecker. Everything has been hacked in ever since. I consider python's type system to be a lost cause, just hoping for someone to make the Typescript equivalent for Python.
Dataclasses support optional fields and kwargs perfectly. Not sure what you are talking about.
I don't think you understand what Pydantic brings to the table or why people use it. It has lots more to do with serialization, complex validation and data mapping.
kwargs are not dataclasses, they are dicts. TypedDict was shoehorned in later to allow typing dicts, but they are so poorly designed that you can't mark individual fields as optional.
I guess you didn't work with good type system then. Look for TS, for example. How it allows to make strong typing for pydantic-like libraries in FE world. All how it allows to type routers.
I don't think this is really true, I think native data classes can do just about everything you need, it's just that you need some tooling around them to get the same as Pydantic offers. I'm pretty sure we are going to see better native dataclass support in Pydantic going forward.
There is no facility in the type system to express the idea that "whatever class attributes are defined, those are kwargs to the init function". That's hacked in using extra typechecker plugins. That's why we're sitting around talking about if a particular typechecker "supports pydantic", rather than it just working.
Technically there is dataclass_transform [1]. It's an ungodly hack, I don't know how it passed PEP review. And support by type checkers is questionable. After TS python hints feels like rigid and total unsound mess.
There is a way to indicate whatever class attributes are defined, those are kwargs to the init function. For one, you can use `kw_only` on the dataclass decorator [1], alternatively you can use the `kw_only` arg on the field function [2].
That's only for dataclasses, you can't implement your own class like this without implementing it as a dataclass, because the typechecking for it is hacked in as a custom plugin.
What I'm trying to point out is that these features exist in core Python and yet the type system they built can't express it. By contrast, TypeScript is designed in such a way that you can implement everything yourself without having to write "custom typescript checker plugins".
I have used native dataclasses with pydantic starting with v1.5 and it’s only improved with the the newer 2.x releases.
Aside from basic inheritance and complex nested types, the pydantic ‘TypeAdapter’ is awesome for simply validating native dataclasses. It’s a little slow, but everything pydantic is =)
He specifically says it's not a lightsaber, and when he's cutting the tomato you can see he does have to apply force for it to go through. He compares it to an ebike, where it makes cutting easier but it's not magic.
Even simpler, complex numbers are really 2D vectors with addition and multiplication defined: a field. There's nothing "imaginary" about that second dimension, very frustrating to see them defined that way because it makes people think of it as an "escape hatch" out of real numbers. When you're working with complex numbers, you are working with a different system: `5 + 0i` is still a complex number because it's really `(5, 0)`.
But working with complex numbers I hardly if ever write (a, b) for a+ib, while I use the "escape hatches" all the time. They solve equations that have no real solution, they give me paths from x=-1 to x=1 that don't cross the origin, etc. There's only so much to learn about C as a vector space, while the theory tying it to R (and even N) is very deep.
Thing is, there's no such thing as an escape hatch. Either you are working in the reals, or you are working in the complex plane. They don't "solve equations that have no real solution", that equation is either a real number equation or a complex number equation, not both. If you work in the complex plane, that is a different equation describing a different space! It just looks the same in standard notation.
If you don't realize this, then you can draw conclusions that don't make sense in the space you're working with. Take a simple equation like y = -x^2 - 5, representing a thrown ball's trajectory. It never crosses zero, there are no solutions. You can't "pop into the complex numbers and find a solution" because the thing it represents is confined to the reals.
So if you find yourself reaching for complex numbers, you have to understand that the thing you are working with is no longer one-dimensional, even if that second dimension collapses back to 0 at the end.
reply