They should add it in C++26

I think Excel formulas also use this, but it’s been a long time so I might be misremembering.

Yes, you’ve got it right. <> means ≠. 16 is not equal to 6.

What languages use this? I don’t like it!

On the other hand it goes well with >= and <=. If >= means “either > or =” then <> means “either < or >”, it checks out.

But I still don’t like it.

are the legs not allowed to be detached even for a moment for maintenance?

I suppose it’s conceivable that there’s a bug in converting between different representations of Unicode, but I’m not buying and of this “detected which language is being spoken” nonsense or the use of character sets. It would just use Unicode.

The modulo idea makes absolutely no sense, as LLMs use tokens, not characters, and there’s soooooo many tokens. It would make no sense to make those tokens ambiguous.

While I agree that it’s awfully low nowadays, kudos to them if they know that’s all they need.

Huh? With IPv6 you get your own IP address, the ISP doesn’t need to know shit about ports. Your address is not behind a NAT anymore, and ports don’t need to be forwarded.

Perhaps you mean the ISP set up a firewall that blocks incoming connections? In which case, maybe you can have that firewall disabled? ISP firewalls and “safe browsing” packages are always shit.

To be honest though there might be some aspect to this I don’t know.

As a daily reader of SMBC, I can confidently tell you this rule is a suggestion at best.

Does this logic apply in China?

I’m Israeli and I totally agree, what the actual fuck?

Like most things in life, context matters. In the OP it seems like the check function is used specifically so it could raise a PaymentException if the payment hasn’t been received… That’s not a “forgiveness/permission” context, this is a yes or no question, hence should have been an if.

Is this feature common in scripting/interpreted languages? Feels like those two things don’t work together.

OpenAI was literally that until it wasn’t

This just makes it more realistic

I had to turn my phone sideways and go cross-eyed to spot the difference.

The proposed time zone is to drift about 1 second every 50 years. I also suspect it wouldn’t really be a time zone in the same sense as the time zones we know - it would just be a standardised calibration reference. Dates and times expressed in “moon time” would probably just be some leap second off of a known Earth time zone, and because it’s mere seconds over centuries, I think the only use of this time zone is to calculate ultra-precise time diffs between two earth datetimes when the observer is on the moon. At least, that’s how I interpret the articles I can find about it.

They had their chance. Heck, they still have their chance. They will continue to have their chance.

I can respect your position but I don’t think you could ever change my mind. The date can’t change in the middle of the day. I can’t accept that.

Currently when you state a time you are almost always implying your local timezone applies, which might be unknown information to the recipient, especially with written sources like these comments here.

In most people’s everyday life that’s really rare. And when it does happen it’s usually clarified. In more automated contexts (e.g. a scheduled YouTube premiere) the software converts it automatically - the author inputs the date and time in their own timezone, and viewer sees the converted date and time in their own timezone.

When it does happen it reminds us that the date and time falls on a different time of day for different participants.

With everybody using the same timezone instead you would always make an unambiguous statement about the specific time by default.

22:00, midday.

Person A: “Meet me here tomorrow at 01:00”

Person B: “Sure no problem”

… three hours later …

Person A: “Ugh, I told him to be here at 01:00, where is he?”

… 24 hours later …

Person B: “Ugh, he told me to come here at 01:00, where is he?”