The way Windows 10 manages updates in general is frustrating. We have some dedicated Windows 10 Lenovo micro-PCs whose only significant job is show videos on some large flatscreen TVs, and we're constantly having to cancel out the update nag screens. GPOs that would seem to work don't always apply, so it just gets to be an annoying problem. I think the next set of such micro PCs we buy will probably have some small footprint version of Debian.

Which modern variant are you using that you have conflicts of this kind?

Microsoft's resolve to alter its patch delivery schedule usually gets undermined the first time some major bug or security flaw is discovered, and it's forced to release an off-schedule fix.

I support the right not to employ someone based on their politics, yes.

A few stories down you can read about US efforts to meddle with North Korea. They seem to be addicted to it.

Japan is closing its breeder reactors. They didn't work, always broken or having serious accidents. They want to try again, with the goal being a working demonstrator by 2050.

So good luck getting people to invest in a technology proven to need a great deal of development and decades to come to fruition, assuming it works next time.

Err, no, the problem with insurance is that an accident can bankrupt a country. No insurer will take on a risk so great that it could potentially wipe them out in a single hit, and no bank would back such a thing anyway.

Fukushima is looking like it will end up in the hundreds of billions of dollars range, maybe $500bn all said and done. In a more litigious country like the US there would be additional claims for lost business etc like with the BP oil spill.

In actually socialist societies like Germany they are getting rid of coal and using taxation to make sure it pays for the damage it does.

Coal has to have its own insurance too.

I don't have such an expectation, but the comment to which I replied seemed to, since it's talking about nulls in databases in the context of changes in null semantics of TypeScript 2.0, seemingly conflating the two.

It makes a difference when you start applying operations.

For example, if you compare a NULL to any value (even another NULL), the result is also NULL, rather than TRUE or FALSE. This doesn't make sense for absent values - two absent values should compare equal (and, indeed, two nulls in JS do). On the other hand, it makes perfect sense if NULL means unknown - if my last name is unknown, and your lastname is unknown, comparing them for equality can only produce "unknown" as a result, since it's not known whether they're the same or different.

Same thing with arithmetic operations. 1 + NULL equals NULL in SQL, again, because NULL is really "unknown", and so when you add an unknown value to 1, the result is also unknown. If NULL were an absent value, the expression should either produce an error, or give 1.

The most telling part, though, is the SQL truth table for Boolean operators that includes NULLs. Specifically:

TRUE AND NULL = NULL
FALSE AND NULL = FALSE
TRUE OR NULL = TRUE
FALSE OR NULL = NULL

Again, this makes perfect sense if and only if NULL means unknown. AND is always false if one of the operands is guaranteed to be false, so FALSE AND NULL is always false, regardless of what the actual unknown value is. On the other hand, FALSE AND NULL is NULL, because the result could be either false or true depending on the unknown value. With OR, it's the reverse - TRUE OR NULL is TRUE, because OR is always true if one of the operands is definitely true, regardless of what the other operand is. FALSE OR NULL is NULL because the result depends on the unknown value.

Philosophically, the difference also exists. Absent value means "I know what the value is, and there isn't one". For example, for a guy from Iceland, you know his last name - he doesn't have one. Unknown value means "I don't know what the value is, and there could be one". For example, you don't know if I'm from Iceland or not, so I may or may not have a last name, and you don't know which one if I do. These are two distinct states, and ought to be reflected as such in the database.

Cushy ambassadorships go to prominent donors (or their kids). Fishy though far from a "price list", and it's also a standard practice for every administration. It's unfortunate but hardly a revelation, especially since I remember this stuff from 2009.

The POTUS using a pseudonym to communicate via email is hardly a scandal, more of an extra layer of security in case someone does get their hands on classified emails (and possibly a way to make finding records more difficult).

And without knowing his email setup it doesn't prove that he knew her actual email address, only that someone in the White House IT Dept knew it and configured his client to handle it.

Are you thinking of a different batch of emails?

I saw some emails suggesting that the DNC really preferred Clinton (duh) but didn't really do anything pro-Clinton other than try to influence some reporters on stories that also involved the DNC.

This I have not heard of.

Yeah... I follow this stuff pretty closely and I don't even know what fact you're trying to twist.

An all of this (many, many more people, ICEs, cutting down rainforests) happened over the last 800,000 years?

And if the talks included a quid pro quo about Russia disrupting the US election to help Trump win?

Hell, even if they didn't include include subtle mentions of Russia manipulating the elections what other reason would Trump's campaign have to secretly talk to Russia during the campaign? If Trump wins the election he's got 2 months to set up his transition, certainly that's more than enough time to have discussions with Russia as the President elect.

Secretly telling a rival power, who is already accused of disrupting the elections, that you're going to be their best friend is really damn suspicious.