I wasn't advocating "abandoning nuclear power", and although I have my reservations about it, I also believe that it might be necessary in order for us to save our sorry asses. You're famous for advocating nukes so I felt a need to advert to that, but I also didn't want to get into litigating that subject in this thread.

Now that you mention it though, I find it very interesting that the word "nuclear" didn't appear once in the post to which I first responded. It strikes me that you were being a little disingenuous - or at least non-forthcoming - by not mentioning it in that earlier post.

"It says EU laws -- which have sought to make it easier for smaller firms to compete with big tech -- have resulted in some Apple features and enhancements being delayed for European users"

Restrictions are not features for users, despite many hostages' Stockholm syndromes to the contrary.

"So unless your sport involve ZERO upper and lower body strength, it makes sense to separate sports by sex"

Per your own logic this is based on the importance of strength only. Therefore this assertion only makes sense if it's a sport where dexterity cannot make up for strength.

You don't know what Ad Hominem is.

It is NOT insulting people.

It is where you say an idea is wrong because someone said it. It may also be accompanied by an insult to attempt to support the argument.

When someone says only an idiot would believe something and then explains why, that is not Ad Hominem. It's just an argument with an insult next to it.

Feel free to object to the insult, but don't make shit up.

How about AIPAC? PAC payments don't have to be under the table in order to be 'dark'.

Israel is paying many American politicians and influencers lots of money to soft-peddle Israel's actions and to deny that what's happening in Gaza is a genocide. Israel lets these people know in no uncertain terms that they have to say certain things and vote in certain ways if they want the gravy train to keep rolling.

Well, if you develop for Android then you're going to learn how this very thing works real soon.

The Leave No Moron Behind policies that reduced the American classroom down to the lowest dumbnominator, didn’t fall off the back of the DoE truck yesterday. Neither did turning the entire American education system into a liberal cesspool of political indoctrination. Let’s try and remember that before we assume a single administration or political party is to blame.

Greed infected education. We fucked the kids and their future when we started tying dollars to grades.

If Apple is required by law to do something and then turns around and does not do or allow that something, that’s not what I or anyone else would call “compliance”.

Requiring no explanation is akin to telling a bank manager “girl math” is the reason they should ignore a negative bank balance.

Fine them $1M per day until they provide a legal explanation. Otherwise, call malicious defiance what it is; blatant corruption.

It's not clear to me that the process under discussion supports your claim. Any planet-saving activity that starts out with hydrocarbons which we burn, can ONLY work if we find a way to cheaply extract CO2 in huge volumes from the atmosphere. And by definition, the energy to power that process would have to come from low-carbon renewable sources such as solar and wind.

So the "battery-electric power" you sneered at is a sine qua non for the "carbon neutral fuel" you thirst for. Unless, that is, we go nuclear on the problem. That's a whole 'nother discussion, and one which you've already had countless times. Assuming for the moment that nuclear energy is off the table, can you describe a credible scenario in which we might - within two decades or so - achieve large-scale carbon sequestration? Because absent that possibility, 'synthesizing hydrocarbons for the good of the planet' sounds a lot like 'fucking for virginity'.

It's both a Democratic hoax AND a Democratic attack.

Thanks. I do wish the article had made it clear that polyolefins include polyethylene and polypropylene, which as I understand it make up the bulk of plastic waste. Ya know, for those of us who aren't organic chemists.

It sounds as though reliably removing PVC from the waste stream makes recycling the rest of the plastics a lot easier and cheaper.

I've had lambic, no clue on whether it was authentic or not, I didn't enjoy it though. But I still don't think it's bad, it's just not for me.

Thanks. I appreciate the points.

I think for me it's that, just about every requirement will relate in some way to function.

Security, for example, can't just be a non-functional requirement because many security requirements actually change how the system works. At its simplest you have to build a functioning login page, rather than not have any login page. Likewise, with PCI DSS, you have to change how an operator speaks on a phone line, the equipment they use, what functions that equipment is permitted to have (can't be a wireless headset, and there can be no function to write the number down on an electronic notepad).

In one of the other replies, someone corrected me because I was using too narrow a definition of "non"". Well, that reminds me, it's the same with the word "function"". Function has very broad meanings. It's not just what something does, it's also it's purposes, and so on.

I think it would be clearer to simply name things as aesthetic requirements, security requirements, market requirements, cost requirements, and so on.

I don't see what the term "NFR" adds that's useful...?

There's far more overlap between aesthetics and function than there are differences. The example of a house, if you choose steel frame or wooden construction or something else, that dictates the aesthetics. And if you choose a different aesthetics, then that's going to dictate the construction. Even the colour of paint can perform a function, climatically, are you reflecting light to keep cool? are you causing glare? Etc.

I think there are huge overlaps across all "functions", but NFR implies they can be thought of in isolation, and I think that is misleading.

I know that it has become impossible to tell, but I think it was meant as a joke. If so, it's making the pertinent point that "right to repair" is not a real "right" because companies have opposed it and managed to limit it, even in the few places where there are laws trying to protect it.

Which makes no difference. The only action that you take is speech. If you had all the same intent, but did not speak you would not be punished.

Put another way, if you shoot an innocent man, but persuade the jury your intent was to save him from a robber, you will be innocent of murder. If the jury believes you intended to kill him then it will be at least second degree homicide. The need for intent is normal in prosecution of most crimes.