This kind of misses the point, though. I would say a much better rule is whatever runs in your workflows should also be entirely reproducible locally.
Even if you can ssh into the remote environment that does not cover things like authentication and authorization, you don't just git a GITHUB_TOKEN with the same permissions.
European countries are de facto vassals of the US. Not because they have to be, not because it benefits them, but because this is what the politicians and their voters want.
Instead of taking care of Ukraine themselves, and providing security guarantees to Ukraine themselves, they expect the US to do it. Instead of supplying Ukraine itself, they need the US to do it. And all of this against an opponent, Russia, that is on paper almost entirely insignificant.
As things stand today, European countries cannot survive independently with US support, making them effectively vassals. And what is worse is, most of the political elite in Europe hate the Americans that they have made themselves completely dependent on.
I don't really like this status quo, as a European I think this is pathetic and embarrassing that we are entirely dependent on US without any need for us being dependent on them. But I don't get the elites that complain about the status quo on one hand, and on the other hand refuse to do anything to change it.
It's more of a co-dependence. When it comes to military we have fallen behind significantly, but the EU member states also doesn't want to spend a trillion euros a year on it.
It may seem one sided, but the EU has a lot more to gain if there was a hard split between them and the US. It will be significantly more painful for the EU, for a long time, but ultimately it would be the undoing of the US as hegemon. Unfortunately Russia would take advantage and begin an invasion into the EU, so an EU/US split is unfavourable.
Ultimately it is the security of NATO that the EU really needs the US for. And that is what it pays for in the dependency it has on the US.
>It's more of a co-dependence. When it comes to military we have fallen behind significantly, but the EU member states also doesn't want to spend a trillion euros a year on it.
Yes, you get it. And the American tax payers also don't want to fund EU lack of spending on military. We are all in agreement.
I'm very conservative and in principle really aligned with Republicans in the US, but this is rotten deal. The end result is in practice worse for everyone, because the American voters do not understand why they should be underwriting out security, and their security underwriting in practice is not very reliable or good from our point of view. It has not deterred Russia, it has not countered China, and I don't think it's going to last, because American voters don't understand what they are getting for it, and neither do I.
Europe will be much better off if we can guarantee our own security. I'm not suggesting for something dumb like withdrawing from NATO without first having the next thing in place, but we need to be in a position where Putin (and his eventual successor) does not feel like they can push us around as much as the Americans will tolerate, which is precisely what Putin thinks.
We can and should be in a position where we push Russia around as much as China and India allows, and we dictate terms to them instead of cowering while they dictate terms to us. We should be in a position where if we say we are going to incorporate Ukraine into a defensive alliance that the Russians praise us and bow out of fear that we will take more of their things, instead of the reverse.
I'm not sure how you get Europe to that position. Do you have any thoughts? Usually the more conservative people in Europe seem to be pro-Russia at the moment.
I think the conservative support for Russia in Europe is mostly reactionary, but whatever the cause may be, it's deeply misguided. Russia is an existential threat, and it has always been this. The West thought that if we treated it as if it was just another western country then it would become one, but that worked out really poorly for us.
As things stand now, Russia and Europe cannot coexist as equals, either we have to dominate Russia, or it will dominate us. I'm a national conservative, I like sovereignty and I like self-determination, and I like peace — and I also like that other nations have those things — and none of that can exist if Russia is in a dominant position. So it has to be subdued.
As to how, I don't have any real practical answers to that question. I think in part the problem is Europeans have become too nihilistic in a sense. In my experience most Europeans think that we have a duty to the rest of the world to become irrelevant, I can understand why, imperialism and colonialism was wrong, but we can be relevant and not be imperial or colonialist. Personally, I am betting and invested in a Christian revival, but I understand that it is probably not a very realistic thing in Europe as it stands today.
Whatever dependence Europe has on external energy is entirely a choice, and it's a choice that can be changed, and if we change our choice it can actually be done relatively quickly.
I would also say whatever dependence Europe has on even US is a choice and can be changed relatively quickly, it's just that I really want Europeans to want to change this. I think if Europe really is determined, we can impose a no-fly zone on Ukraine and Crimea within one year and deter Russia to the point where Russia becomes irrelevant, but the determination is not there at all levels. In part because it will hurt economically, but it's some pain we have to take, I think. The pain will be temporary, it won't be that bad, we can get over it, and it will be worth it in the end.
Americans repeating Kremlin talking points is just odd and sad. Russian energy in Europe is being phased out by 2027. Not only will it "ever happen", it's imminent.
US provides credible deterrence because the US can more or less take on all NATO adversaries at the same time, while Europe alone cannot really take on even one NATO adversary on its own. US also shown willingness to use forc, which European nations have not shown it.
In negotiations with Ukraine, one of the major sticking points is that Ukraine wants security guarantees and peacekeeping forces on the ground, and European nations have themselves said this won't work without a US backstop, which US is not going to provide.
> Russia has said it will not accept any troops from NATO countries being based on Ukrainian soil. And Trump has given no sign the U.S. will guarantee reserve firepower in case of any breaches of a truce. Starmer says the plan won't work without that U.S. "backstop."
If US hasn't provided anything, and Europe is willing to stand on its own, then this would not be the case, there would be no need for a US backstop.
Basically, my theory is this: If Europe didn't need the US, then the US would not have to be involved at all with Ukraine negotiations, and the war would have been stopped years ago. Instead, we have European nations lamenting that the US is not doing more, and that US is not willing to provide security assistence and guaruntees to Ukraine.
I think it should be irrelevant what the US wants to do or does not want to do with Ukraine.
I promise you if Europe kicked Russia out of Ukraine, the threats about Greenland would never have happened. US sees Europe as some child that has overstayed it's welcome at home. This relationship we have with US is not good for us, and if it is good for the US they can't see how. We need to stand on our own feet, we can and should be stronger than the US and Russia combined.
Very much this. I bet the Xbox/games division would be up in arms about it, but they got told to spend less money and also not to bother the important people. The Windows people might care, but with how bad they've been shepherding the OS I'm not so sure.
Nadella is focused on AI and Azure. Bet he could hardly care less.
Honestly I get the Xbox apathy. There's not that much profit in being what, third or fourth place? After Steam, Playstation and Nintendo? Depends how you define it, I guess, but to me they're in fourth place. Microsoft needs to either cut their losses or invest a ton of money. It looks like they will pick some weird thing in the middle, keeping Xbox on life support. Probably some unhappy compromise internally.
Inline script metadata itself is not tied to uv because it's a Python standard. I think the association between the two comes from people discovering ISM through uv and from their simultaneous rise.
pipx can run Python scripts with inline script metadata. pipx is implemented in Python and packaged by Linux distributions, Free/Net/OpenBSD, Homebrew, MacPorts, and Scoop (Windows): https://repology.org/project/pipx/versions.
Perhaps a case for standardizing on an executable name like `python-script-runner` that will invoke uv, pipx, etc. as available and preferred by the user. Scripts with inline metadata can put it in the shebang line.
I get the impression that others didn't really understand your / the OP's idea there. You mean that the user should locally configure the machine to ensure that the standardized name points at something that can solve the problem, and then accepts the quirks of that choice, yes?
A lot of people seem to describe a PEP 723 use case where the recipient maybe doesn't even know what Python is (or how to check for a compatible version), but could be instructed to install uv and then copy and run the script. This idea would definitely add friction to that use case. But I think in those cases you really want to package a standalone (using PyInstaller, pex, Briefcase or any of countless other options) anyway.
> You mean that the user should locally configure the machine to ensure that the standardized name points at something that can solve the problem, and then accepts the quirks of that choice, yes?
I was thinking that until I read the forum thread and Stephen Rosen's comments. Now I'm thinking the most useful meta-runner would just try popular runners in order.
Neat. Of course it doesn't have much value unless it's accepted as a standard and ships with Python ;) But I agree with your reasoning. Might be worth reviving that thread to talk about it.
Using `uv` with python is significantly safer and better. At least you get null safety. Sure, you can't run at the speed of light, but at least you can have some decent non-halfarsed-retrofitted type checking in your script.
In what way does Python have more null safety than Go? Using None will cause exceptions in basically all the same places using nil will cause panics in Go, and Python similarly lacks the usual null-safe operators like traversal (?.), coalescing (??), etc.
You can abuse the falsity of None to do things like `var or ""`, but this ground gets quite shaky when real bools get involved.
And Linux kernel is written in C etc, so by this logic you don't even need memory safety. There is no good excuse for designing a language in modern times (this century) with every object nullable by default. C# at least mostly has solved this design mistake later by introducing nullable reference types (https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/nullable-ref...). Then again, Go designers insisted that generics were also unnecessary, until they changed their mind.
On the contrary, because there we have 40 years of security exploits to prove otherwise, and Linux kernel has plenty of CVEs.
C# solution doesn't work, most projects never adopted it, because it is a mess to use with third party libraries that never bothered to add the required annotations, hence why it is still a warning and optional to this day.
I’m not sure which .NET libraries you are referring to, but all the ones we use have nullable reference types enabled. If you configure warnings as errors (as you should), then it works exceptionally well. Even if you were to use a library where nullable reference types are not enabled, you only need to check for null once during the library call, rather than everywhere in your codebase.
What? NRTs are used everywhere with WarningAsErrors:nullable also gaining popularity. Whatever environment you are dealing with C# in, if it’s the opposite I suggest getting away from that ASAP.
sidenote: just a heads up that I tried emailing you recently to let you know that you might want to contact the HN mods to find out why all your comments get set to dead/hidden automatically.
Your account might have triggered some flag sometime back and relies on users vouching for your comments so they can become visible again.
I saw the email, and thanks. This is okay - I did not exercise (nor anyone should) good impulse control when dealing with bad faith arguments, which inevitably led to an account ban. Either way, Merry Christas!
Even if you can ssh into the remote environment that does not cover things like authentication and authorization, you don't just git a GITHUB_TOKEN with the same permissions.
reply