[author here] Very good questions; I definitely would like to revisit num32 very shortly. I'd say the initial rational of having num32 is not coherent right now, but I'll have to verify removing the support.
we have floating point type(It was missing from the type list in readme. I have just updated that seeing this comment. thank you!)
Well, clarity would be achieved with a name like u64. Is num signed? What's the range? Is it integers or floating point? All these things are hidden. With u64 there would be no questions open. (Well a few maybe, like overflow behavior, but can't have it all..)
There cannot be any num32.
num is a number, which can be fixed size integers, floating point numbers (of fixed size or not) or bigints. Some also add decimals
If you open a file with LibreOffice will read the whole thing regardless of whether or not the file is on NFS or not.
The parent comment was stating that if you use the open(2) system call on a WebDAV mounted filesystem, which doesn't perform any read operation, the entire file will be downloaded locally before that system call completes. This is not true for NFS which has more granular access patterns using the READ operation (e.g., READ3) and file locking operations.
It may be the case that you're using an application that isn't LibreOffice on files that aren't as small as documents -- for example if you wanted to watch a video via a remote filesystem. If that filesystem is WebDAV (davfs2) then before the first piece of metadata can be displayed the entire file would be downloaded locally, versus if it was NFS each 4KiB (or whatever your block size is) chunk would be fetched independently.
So a thought experiment: If China were to put out a warrant for Trump's (the most unpopular president in US History, someone the majority of Americans disapprove of, a convicted criminal, and a pedophile who raped young people and has not been brought to account for these crimes as of yet) under the pretense that some of his victims were Chinese nationals and then invaded the Whitehouse to forcibly remove him to China, would that also be legal and justified ? What would you expect the reaction in the US to be ?
To be very clear I do not support this -- out leaders should be held to account to their people, not foreign invaders deciding for us. Even if it seems unlikely that they ever will be, it's our process and people.
This argument doesn't really hold water because the jurisdiction of a nation isn't the whole world.
If we have a warrant for a Sovereign or someone else with Diplomatic Immunity we -- at the very least -- should not invade their territory to carry it out. That's not how the civilized society works, and that's not how we want it to work as evidenced by the thought experiment above.
If we are at war with a nation or people, and reject the premise of their fundamental sovereign or diplomatic nature of course it's a different story since we are talking about a fundamental disagreement of reality. There's a separate process for that weighty decision by the US people's representatives.
well, there are ICC warrants. They do ignore diplomatic immunity. And opinion of many people that, for example, Netanyahu should be at least arrested if he lands in Europe and at most "somebody" should send extraction team to kidnap him
It seems like we should not invade another sovereign country unless we are at war -- a weighty process we should undergo because it's how the will of the people manifest in power.
The US isn't a participant to the ICC, so I'm not sure what exactly your implication is... ?
I do not think we should invade Israel and kidnap their leader. I believe the people of that country should self-govern within their sovereign rights. I don't think China should invade the US and kidnap it's leader. I believe the people of the US should self-govern within their sovereign rights. I don't believe the US should invade Venezuela and kidnap their leader. I believe the people of Venezuela should self-govern within their sovereign rights.
i was pointing out that diplomatic immunity (of head of state) that you mention is trashed by ICC warrants (in countries who are party to it. i.e. good chunk of europe).
so, in the moment that something as basic as diplomatic immunity can be violated by warrants for investigation (not for trial), invading another country to arrest somebody based on warrants that you had issued domestically is not that big of leap
You are talking about a after a country has decided that they want to participate in the this process by ratifying their participation intentionally. How does this relate to a unilateral invasion ?
Vienna Convention (1961): This treaty standardized the rules, making diplomatic immunity a binding obligation for its over 190 signatory nations
And then comes ICC (via Rome statue, ratified by 125 countries and half a dozen of them in process of withdrawal) and trashes with it warrants diplomatic immunity.
So in case international law/treaty from 1961 is all of sudden not binding, why wouldn't uniliteral invasion (actually it looks like it more of arrest operation) (which is probably prohibited by some other international treaties) not be ok ?
I do not understand the point you are making. You cite a treaty that countries explicitly agree to protect diplomats while they are guests in another country -- I'm not sure what relationship this has with one sovereign nation using force to rendition someone from another country.
The only country that has agreed to the terms of the ICC here is Venezuela -- but there is no ICC arrest warrant for anyone involved, nor is the US acting on behalf of the ICC nor does it have any authority to do so.
The invasion (which was required to perform the arrest, since it was within the territory) was definitely an invasion and morally wrong.
As noted several times, there are many ways that this could have been done that are in accordance with civil society it. It wasn't, and that is bad.
my point is that diplomatic immunity is international law. signatories to rome statue said that they will violate it (diplomatic immunity of Israeli head of state) because of icc warrant.
this is violation of international law that multiple countries openly stated that they will perform.
essentially it means that international law is not binding and selectively enforced. this is slippery slope.
if you can ignore vienna convention why not ignore whatever other part of international law that prohibits invasion ?
PS. UK and France just bombed ISIS in Syria. Is it also invasion and morally wrong ?
I still do not understand your point because as you state there is no conflict between the two agreements, and further there are no pair countries involved that mutually agreed to the ICC:
- Diplomatic Immunity (through various treaties): Countries that participate will respect diplomats
- ICC: Countries that agree will participate in ICC judicial process
From what I can tell, you seem to be under the impression that there's some conflict here. If that is your position then you are wrong. A country can both simultaneously respect foreign diplomats and work with the ICC to ensure that local citizens are held accountable in the ICC.
BUT, a further point -- international law can never be binding. It's between sovereign peers, and is based on the concept of reciprocal benefit. International treaties give the participants some benefit in exchange for something else. This has to be the case because there is no superior entity to arbitrate violations of the law. If you don't keep up your end of the bargain, you risk the other participants not keeping up their end of the bargain.
This is, for example, why having the top US officials committing war crimes is bad -- it's not because some superior nation will inflict justice upon the violator (because no such entity exists) but because other signatories have no legal obligation to not commit war crimes against us (although, many people are morally opposed to most war crimes and wouldn't commit them anyway).
A further note about your PS, which seems unrelated to the topic is that bombing isn't itself an invasion (it may be part of one), but for my opinion I think that killing people without due process is bad and should be a last resort for defense.
I've had some additional time to reflect on this thread and I think I can spot the core disconnect.
Do you believe that the Vienna Convention requires that countries treat their diplomatic representatives in some special legal way ? For example, do you believe that the Vienna Convention obligates the US to extend diplomatic immunity to the US Ambassador to France ?
If so, that's backwards. It doesn't obligate one country to treat their own diplomats specially inside their own legal system, it defines how participants of the treaty will treat FOREIGN diplomats. The benefit of being part of the treaty is that your diplomats are treated specially when they are in foreign lands, and the cost is you treat foreign diplomats specially when they are in your land.
The currency of treaties is reciprocity.
A treaty can never be binding, there exists no superior entity for which to bring your appeal which can then ultimately use their monopoly on force to extract justice -- each nation is sovereign and a peer in that respect.
Finally, I didn't address your last paragraph but I will now: It does not matter if the USA calls it a law enforcement operation and not invasion, it was still an invasion. It was an invasion because it meets the definition of the word. But ALSO it wasn't a law enforcement operation because the laws of the US do not apply in Venezuela. Also, it's illegal in the US to use the US Military for enforcing US laws except in times of invasion... although it sadly specifies that the US must be the entity being invaded, not just there be an invasion.
So it sounds to me like you are stating that you are okay with the original premise that it would be okay for China to come to the US Whitehouse and forcibly remove Trump to China to stand trial for the crimes he may have committed against Chinese nationals ?
I did something similar with TCL, the basis was using an extension I wrote to handle the UNIX stuff [0]. It operated an On-Premises cloud environment appliance, and `init` was just a TCL script (at one point it was a statically linked binary with the init script embedded, but that turned out to be overkill)
If you're willing to go a bit further you can also do GPG signing with ECDSA, though it requires a patched GPG due to bugs and a patched SSH agent that allows raw signing. We have a packaged version with a macOS UI [0], but the same backend [1] works on Linux using the tpm via PKCS#11.
We have a blog post on this, but I guess it was never made public, but the only difference between GPG and SSH is the way in which keys and signatures are wrapped and listed through the various layers -- it's all just fundamentally ECDSA with a named curve.
There is a good reason though, right? My understanding is that local ordinances require very frequent window inspections (following a highly publicized death), so to perform those inspections they need the scaffolding to protect the under-walking pedestrians from the inspectors. Because they are so frequent, it's cheaper to just leave the scaffolding up and take it down and put it up for every inspection.
With drones becoming more common and robust, though, it will hopefully soon be easier and faster to do the inspections and so the scaffolding may become cheaper to remove and replace each cycle
The inspection rules are kind of extreme, supported by the people who do the work and the scaffold companies. Once you “start work” (put up the scaffolding) the clock stops. You see buildings with scaffolding for years with little to non actual work.
reply