It's just they are asking there where they expect they'll reach a better answer faster than on SO.

The North Stream scenario could just repeat.

Are you calculating the route or just pointing the user in the general direction?

I’m actively working on features like waypoint tracking, offline maps, and a GPS speedometer. The goal is to keep MBCompass a useful navigation utility, not a full routing app.

Routing isn’t planned at the moment (maybe with plugins later), since adding it would shift the app away from its core purpose and increase complexity. The main priority is to remain fully functional offline-friendly and extremely lightweight (currently under 1.5 MB).

By offline-friendly you're referring to the compass part only, right?

Otherwise users would have to download the map in advance which would take more that 2MB. Am I reading this right?

For maps, it’s a bit different users initially see an online basemap (requires internet). Instead of forcing them to download an entire map upfront like some libraries (e.g., MapsForge), they can crop or select specific areas to download.

This makes it convenient to get only the map they need. Of course, if they prefer online maps, the app will cache tiles automatically. In remote areas, offline maps can be used as planned.

As if it was not enough that the author himself put it in Britain.

If you want Soviet Style distopia, better read "We" from Zamyatin.

That being said - the blame lies squarely with Labour here. I have a gut feel a lot of it has to do with donors to the Tony Blair Institute.

It's not even funny that you can trace almost any person responsible for the deterioration of human rights in Western society to one of the WEF alumni or associates.

These supernatural institutions and interest groups should be made illegal if we want to continue as a civilization.

[1] https://www.weforum.org/stories/authors/tony-blair-2/

(to the extent that armed revolution worked in the UK, the IRA were helped only slightly by US-backed supplies of Armalite rifles, and much more by a large supply of Libyan high explosives. Guns are a much less effective political weapon than the car or truck or hotel bomb)

But in general the better armed states in the U.S. had less restrictive covid rules. So perhaps there is a link between how armed the population is and how well it resists restrictions it doesn't like.

I don't see ICE prowling "the cops don't come serve a warrant here with anything less than a SWAT team" parts of New Orleans or St. Louis.

Stop thinking about this based on indoctrinated emotion and politics. Think about it in terms of an all out war and "how do I force my enemy to expend resources not toward his goals".

Personal ability to credibly threaten lethal violence (note: I did not say "firearms") acts much like an AGTM or MANPADS for an infantry squad. Making any potential target substantially more prickly to a potentially superior force and doing so for little cost is a huge boon for the little guy. A firearm is a force multiplier same as a bomb carrying drone or a cell phone that records things the government does not like or a media platform that puts those things in front of the eyes of the masses.

The idea that any cranky old man or mentally on the edge person might just snap and put a bullet in your favorite bespoke enforcer (i.e. not a cop but someone who hands out state backed fines all the same) puts a huge damper on your ability to deploy those people for example. The risk that your informants might get clapped increases the cost of your informants for like results, etc, etc. And when you game it out to it's ends what it comes down to is that the population doing the subjugating might simply not be rich enough or motivated enough to have or be willing to allocate the resources needed to do the job.

This is a large part of why drugs won the war on drugs. There were enough glawk fawtys wit da switch kicking around on the "wrong" side of the law that the cops needed to adopt militarized tactics, the public didn't wanna pay for that shit (monetarily or politically) over weed, and thus drugs won the war on drugs. If they could've rolled up on just about anyone "cheaply" with just a couple cops it would've gone on way longer.

>(to the extent that armed revolution worked in the UK, the IRA were helped only slightly by US-backed supplies of Armalite rifles, and much more by a large supply of Libyan high explosives. Guns are a much less effective political weapon than the car or truck or hotel bomb)

The semtex wouldn't have gotten anywhere useful if the Brits could just walk into wherever all willy nilly chasing down every lead in search of it. Bringing enough credible threat of violence to force their enemy to actually behave like a proper occupying force burning money and political credibility as a result limited the Brit's ability engage (at the right price) in the kind of police action they needed to catch the bombs.

If they could've just sent pairs of cops after every lead in an "oi you got a license for that meme" manner they'd have dredged up all the semtex and none of it would've made it to London.

The woman who was shot was a democrat without any guns, maybe if she'd had a gun she wouldn't have been shot.

And how do you imagine that, exactly? You think that cop was fine shooting her for driving away in panic, but would patiently wait for her to grab a gun? And what would you like a person in her situation to do with the gun? Shoot him? The fact is, pulling a weapon in front of a US cop is begging to be killed on the spot. A common point of advice is that if you're stopped in the US by police, you should never look like you're reaching for anything, because the worst-case penalty for that is death. It instantly escalates the situation to life-or-death for a group of people that is largely already itching to pull the trigger.

If he didn't have a gun, maybe he would be driven over by the car. Possibly a few more people too. In Europe, where guns are less prevalent, cars are the favorite weapon used by terrorists.

Luckily, he had a gun, so he was able to save himself and who knows how many more people by shooting an attacker.

Hardly relevant. If you control guns better, you get fewer illegal weapons as well. Most of the murders in Europe are committed by illegal weapons as well.

> Banning legal weapons wouldn't reduce crime

Of course it would - see the reduction in gun violence in countries where this has been implemented.

> Besides, USA is not a good example. According to Wikipedia [1], high murder rate statistics in the USA are skewed due to the overrepresentation of one specific part of the population

Oh. You're one of those.

It's a peculiarly American thing to try first to look to race to try to understand something, when there are more salient correlations.

Presumably since Black Americans are overrepresented as victims of gun violence, you'd like to see a significantly higher proportion carrying guns?

Since you bring up Europe, I can give you a counterexample of Switzerland, which is armed to the teeth and still has a significantly lower homicide rate than the USA. The same applies to Canada. Even some countries with prevalent illegal guns are not even close to the USA. Heck, there's a war in Ukraine, guns are everywhere, and still, there's a very low homicide rate.

> Oh. You're one of those.

One of which? Say it or shut up. Or are you one of these? ;)

> It's a peculiarly American thing to try first to look to race to try to understand something, when there are more salient correlations.

I'm not even an American. But given the above counterexamples, it's clear that the availability of legal guns is not the only, and probably not the biggest deciding factor for high homicide rates.

Want to understand the cause? Open a Wikipedia page, look at the stats, and identify the fact that most of the homicides in the USA can be tracked down to some specific population. That's not racist, since facts can't be racist. You won't reduce the homicide rate by ignoring the facts.

> Presumably since Black Americans are overrepresented as victims of gun violence, you'd like to see a significantly higher proportion carrying guns?

Can you explain that logic? First, if you look at the stats again, most of the Black Americans are killed by the members of their race, probably due to higher exposure to threats.

So yes, Black Americans need legal guns to protect themselves even more than White Americans, since they are more endangered.

Everyone in the US agrees with the inequalities and segregation and find it acceptable that an individual has to become a predator to survive because they don't find it acceptable to help each other on a governmental scale.

Some countries have worse inequalities than the US but they don't think they need guns to have freedom in their daily lives.

i say this as someone who did target rifle shooting as a kid. so, i’ve been around weapons in a positive way.

the controls are a good thing.

    God save the Queen
    The fascist regime
    It made you a moron
    Potential H-bomb
    God save the Queen
    She ain't no human being
    There is no future
    In England's dreaming

    Don't be told what you want to want to
    And don't be told what you want to need
    There's no future, no future
    No future for you

Actual abusers are fine. Talking about it is the problem.

One can perfectly fine write correct programs using mutable variables. It's not a security feature, it's a design decision.

That being said, I agree with you that the author should decide if Zen-C should be either mutable or immutable by default, with special syntax for the other case. As it is now, it's confusing when reading code.

Inversely, as a US investor, if you invested 100€ in the eurostoxx 50, your pile of money would have grown to about $140 (20% index growth, 15% dollar debasement). It absolutely makes a difference, that's $20 more in your pocket compared to the index.

Your comparison with temperatures is wrong. Celsius and Fahrenheit are fixed units, whereas the value of currencies fluctuate.

Celsius and Fahrenheit doesn't work as an analogy because the rate does not change over time as it does with currencies.

I don't understand this question, are you asking if material goods and services in Europe, which uses EUR, "somewhat" follows the S&P, a US stock market index?

Approximately no individual does this. Some companies may hold some foreign currency reserves, but even there it is not _particularly_ common in most cases.

As a European, I have never, in 40 years, had any USD, except a small amount of paper currency. If I'm buying something made in the US, I'm probably buying from a local vendor, or else will convert on the fly. If I'm visiting the US, I'll convert on the fly (this is even cheap, now, thanks to neo-banks). I own a bunch of US equity, but indirectly via a euro-denominated global market index fund. This is fairly standard. In general it's only common for individuals to hold foreign currency where the local currency is particularly unstable.

Do people do this? Up until some months ago, I was heavily invested in some US companies, and I never actually held USD in my accounts at any point. I used EUR to buy those stocks, the conversion happening together with the purchase, and same thing when I sold them, I received EUR ultimately.

I know I could have another account in my bank with USD set to the currency, I just don't know why'd anyone would want to, when you can convert at the point of sale/purchase. Of course, if you're doing forex trading or whatever, that might make sense, but I don't think generally people hold USD to buy/sell US stocks, because you don't have to.

... Wait, why would you expect the price of goods to follow the valuation of, well, any market index, never mind one specific foreign market index? Like, I don't understand why you think that would happen. If anything, you'd expect a minor inverse relationship, at least on a global scale; rapid growth of cost of goods indicates inflation, which implies central bank tightening, which tends to depress stock values a bit.

There may be some offset for goods imported from the US, but that's a minority of consumer goods globally, and even then, the purchase currency will usually still be the local fiat, and then the attractiveness of the US index fund still has to be weighed against the performance of non-US-based indices in that same local currency as opportunity cost.

If you need to wait for it to recover you have lost money.

Besides, who says it will recover?

> You're buying a share of productive capacity, the currency it is listed in doesn't matter.

But I don't own a fixed percentage of production, I own a fixed number of shares and the number of shares can change. If the number of shares doubles, then my investment is worth half as much.

How is that related to currency changes? That can happen anyway regardless of the currency.

If I can say something has an "absolute" value of X, but I denominate it in USD, which is normally 1:1 to X, then it's value in USD in X.

but if USD drops to being worth half an X, but its absolute value hasn't changed, it will now appear to be worth 2X in USD.

so why can't one argue, if the dollar weakened by 15%, but everything else being equal, one would expect dollar denominated stocks to appreciate (in dollars) by the same amount? And if the dollar would strengthen, we would expect the stock price to depreciate?

The companies in the 500 are mostly global companies, if the USD shrunk so much they would either be losing money, or it doesn't matter because the US market is so strong it dwarfs the others.

Isn't that saying exactly what the parent comment mentioned? Since those companies are global, the growth of the S&P 500 which is USD denominated will track the devaluation of the USD as the underlying companies haven't lost value, the dollar has, and the S&P 500 would track that as growth in percentage to balance it.

I don't understand why they would be losing money since as you said they're global, and more untethered to the USD than the S&P 500.

This is clearly the USD Global index dropping a few basis points, which is an active strategy. Look at the USD Index over 15 year period, there is nothing wrong with USD today.

What I'm asking, to me it seems if the USD drops in value, but everything else stays the same (i.e. GOOG hasn't lost any real value if measured in any other currency for instance). I'd expect GOOG to rise in USD terms (as its value has stayed constant).

Why wouldn't this be true (yes, there are a bunch of assumptions/complexities, and perhaps those assumptions/complexities break the argument), but at a very simplistic level is what I said wrong?

Yeah, er, that's a very big if. There's no real reason to assume that, and history doesn't really bear it out.

If anything in the near term you'd probably expect the USD to weaken further vs the Euro; Trump seems _very_ keen to install a fed chair who'll cut rates even where not supported by inflation and employment numbers, whereas the ECB is more disciplined and less subject to political interference.

Trump has made it clear he wants a cheaper dollar to make US exports more competitive and JPM is forecasting another 10% drop in the value of the dollar this year.

Just because the dollar and euro have been roughly level for over a decade doesn't mean that will remain true, currencies often go through pretty fast changes in relative values every few decades as their financial and geopolitical positions change. The pound drop around 2007~2009 is a good example of one such sudden but long term price shift.

> It's the same as complaining that the temperature increased more in Fahrenheit than in Celsius.

No, that logic is flawed. Fahrenheit and Celsius are pegged to each other, the Euro and the USD are not.