More fake candidates will be chasing more fake jobs.

Re: "and put only half our eggs in the energy basket." -- should be "half our eggs in one energy basket".

And "Western-friendly companies" may also factor in location. For example, if war breaks out at Taiwan, getting supplies from Japan could be logistically difficult. Thus, we probably want a fair number of suppliers in the American, European, and/or African continents.

this may not account for things like environmental degradation, harm to the general population and other issues surrounding personal rights, etc.

China's workers are de-facto slaves and their consumers are de-facto guinea pigs.

The article mentioned the "996" labor model, which while technically illegal, is given a blind eye by the gov't.

The Soviet Union quickly caught up in nuclear weapons just after WW2 by radiating everybody and their dog around factories and test grounds. They moved fast and broke people. China has a similar mentality when Xi lists a top goal: win first, citizens be damned. To misquote Mel Brooks: "It's good to be dictator".

The Western world should refuse to become fully dependent on China for green energy equipment, and limit their market share in batteries, wind, panels, etc. to say 50%. That would mean the investors mentioned could focus on Western-friendly* companies that are to fill in that other 50%. That China's prices are lower doesn't matter, they would be limited to 50% of sales regardless of price. Don't forget the lesson of the pandemic: don't have a single source for anything important because wars, plagues, and mayhem happen.

We already know Xi is drooling bigly over Taiwan, having arguably the biggest navy now; we should thus presume there will be a war over it and run our industry with that assumption active, and put only half our eggs in the energy basket. (Both sides will likely shut down trade with each other during the Taiwan battle.)

* Not sure Trump is "Western friendly", that's a wildcard.

or as MTG says, "disrobed"?

I currently work hybrid. It reduces my effective pay by around 10%, which is a hell of a cut. It gains me nothing, since all meetings - even when we're all in the same room - are via teams, because company policy.

I see no added value from visiting the office.

North Korea?

Why not, everyone else is.

It's more entertaining than the original! No cat torturing, for one.

That kind of thinking got us stuck with COBOL ;-)

War is dumb, but giving bullies free reign is dumber.

Yes, Iran and Vietnam were probably mistakes, but nobody said conflicts are easy nor clear.

> There is no exception here. Teachers are to teach what is in the published curriculum

If the curriculum limits answers to certain questions for religious reasons than it's in violation of the separation clause.

> It can be a matter of health,

I'm sure the evil GOP will try to twist their argument into being about health or the like, but underlying it's religion trying to camouflage itself, like how Intelligent Design tried to disguise creationism as science. It's bearing False Witness and thus should be punished via an elevator to Hell. Jesus can read GOP's evil minds.

Ish.

I would not trust C++ for safety-critical work as MISRA can only limit features, it can't add support for contracts.

There have been other dialects of C++ - Aspect-Oriented C++ and Feature-Oriented C++ being the two that I monitored closely. You can't really do either by using subsetting, regardless of mechanism.

IMHO, it might be easier to reverse the problem. Instead of having specific subsets for specific tasks, where you drill down to the subset you want, have specific subsets for specific mechanisms where you build up to the feature set you need.

Oh, absolutely. These days, I spend so much time checking the output from computers, it would normally have been quicker to do searches by hand. This is... not useful.

I can fully understand that.

> but the fascists got the trains running on time...

They actually lied about that, jailing reporters who criticized timing.

> School teachers don't have a 1st Amendment right in the classroom, just as I didn't have a 1st Amendment right while in my US Army uniform.

Apples and oranges. In the military one has to learn to STFU or the enemy can hear where you are. A teacher simply describing what LGBTQ+ concepts are shouldn't be an exception to the 1st. There's no logical reason other than religious offense, which then has the church sticking its peanut butter in secular chocolate.

> How do we resolve this [restroom & shower issues]?

There are ways to compromise, but that's a longer topic.

> If the teachers want to express their beliefs

That's NOT what I proposed.

> While in the classroom the teachers should be expected to follow the state specified curriculum or expect to be fired.

It's realistic to answer a simple question from a child, even if it offends religious troglodytes.