VB.Net has explicit syntax that follows C#'s try/catch/finally: https://learn.microsoft.com/en...

They added that as the recommended replacement for Visual Basic's legacy "On Error" -- so I don't think your suggestion holds up. Having vaguely similar effects doesn't mean the two "both work out to the same thing just with a different syntax" any more than being Turing complete means different languages are fundamentally equivalent.

Correction: like the name of the database says, there are 380k reports of adverse events after people got vaccinated. Study is required to determine whether those were reactions or coincidences (or indirect consequences).

After I got the first two COVID-19 shots, I got a survey that asked whether I had seen a doctor for any illness since then. I truthfully answered: I had a tick bite that ended up with a rash around it, and I went to a doctor to exclude Lyme disease as a cause. When I later doing it about VAERS, I searched and found an entry that signed like mine. I don't know for sure it was about me, but I do know that tick bite and infection had nothing to do with a vaccine.

The wording is very careful. It's talking about people who were not authorized to immigrate to the US, but used programs that made it very easy to get forbearance of removal and work authorization.

For example,this page describes one such group: Hondurans who moved to the US before 1999, and have not left the US since 6 January 1999. They immigrated illegally but can work and avoid being deported because they have "temporary protected status". This is one of the programs that the Trump administration is ending, causing the status changes discussed in TFA.

What's the C# equivalent to "On Error GoTo -1", to pick one of the annoying misfeatures of VB.Net?

Your own "about 48 months" metric shows that you are being more carbon-intensive than me -- and that your short-term leases will only put you farther behind over time.

https://carsbibles.com/how-muc... also says that manufacture and transport of an EV are roughly equivalent to driving 20k to 40k miles in an ICE vehicle -- even before we count the costs of driving those miles in the EV. Factoring that in, the lower end is consistent with your 48-month number.

"Carbon payback period" is only relevant when buying the same number of vehicles on each side of the ledger -- which, obviously, I have not felt compelled to do.

The popularity of leasing doesn't mean that it is the right thing to do -- it usually means people are spending more than they need to, and then shipping a barely used car to some third world country.

I have been driving the same gas car with a 400+-mile range since 2018. (A stranger crashed into my previous vehicle while it was parked, totalling it -- otherwise I might still be driving my 2012 vehicle.) I am pretty sure your two additional vehicles in that period more than balance out environmental impacts from the respective power sources -- especially since I've only put 60,000 miles on my current car.

I guess some people find that throwing lots of money down a pit every few years feels like progress.

If a function is simple enough that "buggy" can be defined in isolation, AI or a junior developer can probably write it without much supervision. Most bugs that escape the first-level developer are violations of contextual expectations: cases where the code would work as expected in a different application, with a different use case, or something like that. So the characteristics of "a buggy function" depend on the code, processes and users around it, and that is where junior developers often fall short.

Defensive programming or robustness and "good taste" reduce the frequency of those bugs, but knowing how to do those well usually comes from experience with mistakes in the general domain: for example, handling very long lines in line-oriented (text) input.

(Or, from my life last week, populating a "source identifier" field in a protocol. The code was targeted for use in two executables: one with a fixed source ID across all deployments, and one where four instances within the same process would each have their own source ID. For some reason, the software team decided to read the source ID from a config file -- and then never set up the config file, so it sent a zero ID. The protocol reserves zero values because somebody knew people will fuck up exactly in that kind of way. In a different environment, that module of code would have been fine, but it was buggy in the actual environment.)

What do you think "experience" means? How do you think people get it?

Junior developers will make mistakes, but if the environment is organized to support learning and the junior devs stick around for a bit, they will learn -- either from their own mistakes or from others' -- and get better. Sometimes you get someone with "one year of experience, ten times" instead of "ten years of experience", but a good shop should try to avoid or remove that, depending on the root cause.

I mean, it is trivially true that current junior devs will never have exactly the same experience as current experienced devs, and hopefully the experienced devs continue to get better and so the juniors might not fully catch up, but taken as a group, today's junior devs should eventually grow into experienced developers and be senior to tomorrow's junior devs.

I strongly suspect so -- but would the rate and degree of pollution be worse than the baseline case for an inexperienced developer? Most software developers (and I think this decreases only somewhat with experience) do not have the discipline to think rigorously about the changes they are making and review the surrounding context. That self-discipline is what distinguishes engineers from mere coders.

If you mean "Does this mean mac OS 26 is now Apple Silicon only?", the answer is "no", but mac OS 27 will only support Apple Silicon: https://9to5mac.com/2025/06/09...

The Air & Space museum in downtown DC is nice and all, but the Space Shuttle is much too big to fit in it.

I was responding to a comment that claimed having the Space Shuttle an hour outside of DC makes it accessible to more people than at the proposed new site. Houston has more residents and more visitors. You might want your own facts, but if you want to make your dumb "by your logic" argument, you are picking a fight with the wrong person.

People visiting the US want to see the monuments in downtown DC, not a repurposed airplane hangar in Data Center Alley where a wrong turn puts you at risk of getting shot by armed guards at one of the many Intelligence Community facilities in the area. (You know they're serious when the guards have patches on their uniforms showing their blood type.) But even then it takes the figurative swamp to make it appealing to visit a drained literal swamp.

See how easy it is to make a place sound bad through rhetoric?

An awful lot of the people going to DC are there for work as well -- note that both of your last quotes count "visitors" total, rather than trying to separate tourists from business travelers. If half of Houston's visitors are there only for business, the other half is still basically as many total visitors as DC gets. For the record, 54 million came from https://www.khou.com/article/m... .

Now that you're hiding behind AC posts, when are you going to delete your account?

I have lived in both metro areas (technically in Bellaire rather than Houston proper). Houston is much better than you claim, although Astroworld is still missed, and DC has been crapping itself over the past quarter century. School trips to DC aren't going to take a bus out to Chantilly when they can go to the Air & Space Museum on the Mall. You're also wrong about which city has more visitors: in 2024, when both cities broke records for the second year in a row, Houston saw 54 million tourists (as a destination -- 63 million went through the city's two main airports); DC had 27 million.

The Houston metro area has 7.8 million residents. The DC metro area has 6.4 million residents. How do you figure the latter makes an exhibit "accessible to so many more people"?