I've also seen a Spanish site with this, but as far as I know it has only been accepted by Austrian and German authorities (and challenged recently by some courts).
> The "--force" / legacy option can't tell a difference between "broken solution that will work for you" and "broken solution which won't".
But probably it doesn't have to. "--force" implies that the user wants to go on and manage the consequences of what happens. Typing it requires actively adding that flag, which is a conscious decision on the part of the user. If the user wants to check by themselves if it works or not, that could be their prerogative.
In the Spanish-speaking world you can find the endings -e, -@, and -x. Depending on the area/organization one or other can be used (also, differing ways of pronouncing them; I'm a native and barely have heard any one pronounce the -e versions ever).
This seems to ignore the Snowden revelations. I don't think most of the world trusts US companies qualitatively more than they trust Chinese companies for these kinds of apps.
Also, the discussion was about national security and you are giving different arguments here. How is this related to national security?
I'd think that it's cheaper not because it's risky (specially since Amazon says it inspects the item), but because it's second hand. Trying to pass the risk to the user is probably not what most people would expect.
Well, that's not a defining characteristic of English but of most (all?) living, dynamic languages. I have seen it with the languages I speak or have tried to learn (Spanish, German, Portuguese, Chinese...).
Having a German (as parent poster) and Spanish phone for many years, I have never had a robocall. It's really surprising to me that this is a problem at all.
It is my impression that corruption measures usually indicate corruption available or actively done by normal people without power (eg. bribing officers to get licenses or similar things).
Corruption by big corporations and similar things is usually another thing (although if things are corrupt in the low level, they will for sure be in the higher levels).
I don't think I agree with the grandparent, but usually swing voters don't change their political views, but rather political parties adapt their programs (or rather, propaganda) to appeal to them. So I don't think that's a good example.
It's like QuickCheck, but instead of testing random values, it tests all values in a certain range.
For example, if the function takes an array of 128 bit values, it's test all the possible arrays of length 0, 1, 2... up to the length you want to test for.
(Actually, not necessarily all, but all that an exhaustive generator generates; the generator would normally go through all values, but it potentially could only test some values, but would not select them at random).
I've also seen a Spanish site with this, but as far as I know it has only been accepted by Austrian and German authorities (and challenged recently by some courts).