> Why would you ever want to work somewhere that clearly employs such unqualified individuals

Because you're unemployed and need to work to get some money.

Do you think you're a super intelligent person when you couldn't even figure that out?

It goes without saying that someone needing money that badly wouldn't do what the OP here did. Stop trying to be right and start trying to see the world for what it is. It'll help you do better.

A response in milliseconds is effectively instantaneous. Also there is no coal in Scotland since 2016.

And if you want physical spinning machines, there is hydro which is obviously big in Scotland because there's plenty rain.

Most first world countries don't have this. It's not a given.

The US is usually a hot bed of experimentation in corporate malfeasance.

As an American, it's funny how ahead and "first world" the US can be in some things, but how backwards and "developing country" the US can be in other things.

Medicine itself is very first-world. But medical insurance is one of those "worse than developing country" things. The fact that Americans need medical insurance at all is appalling to many countries, first world and otherwise.

And of course, by funny I mean "I can only laugh otherwise I'd cry"

Which things are the US ahead in?

Good question. Technology, for one. Is it the first in technology? Probably not. But when comparing first world countries with developing countries, technology is where the US's economic output is.

And also military, though I'm not sure if that's something to be proud of.

Immigration

The bit where killing people is just an oopsie.

Can they? How does that work?

types can be (and almost always are) overly restrictive, preventing otherwise valid code from running. they can also be under powered, and not expressing necessary invariants for the algorithm.

I didn't make any claims about that, just that they can't be wrong. And by that, I didn't mean you can't choose the wrong types, just that once you've chosen types that compile they can't be incompatible or other than what they are.

That being said, I've always found the argument that types can be overly restrictive and prevent otherwise valid code from running unconvincing. I've yet to see dynamic code that benefits from this alleged advantage.

Nearly universally the properly typed code for the same thing is better, more reliable and easier for new people to understand and modify. So sure, you can avoid all of this if the types are really what bother you, but it feels a bit like saying "there are stunts I can pull off if I'm not wearing a seatbelt that I just can't physically manage if I am."

If doing stunts is your thing, knock yourself out, but I'd rather wear a seatbelt and be more confident I'm going to get to my destination in one piece.

I think you'll find the manager was also an employee.

> How dense do you think your C-level is

I guess density doesn't really change, whether you have one short plank or two.

Sarcasm? Or you don't know any black people?

oi mate, got a license for that snark?

You would think examples like this would demonstrate to you that your thinking was wrong, but instead you just double down on it.

We already have enough evidence of people in the UK getting arrested for saying things on social media.

Like calling for hotels housing asylum seekers to be set on fire? https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3v5926yeqro

She said she wouldn’t care if the hotels were set on fire.

“Set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care.”

That “for all I care” changes the whole meaning of the sentence.

She clearly disagreed with you since she pled guilty.

Generally, _inciting violence_. I mean, agree with that being punishable or not, you've got to admit that it is in a different _category_ to calling some dickhead a dickhead.

Is it for saying dickhead? Or is it for things like making terroristic threats and spreading racial hatred?

Pointing out highly increased crime rates of certain groups of asylum immigrants is not "spreading racial hatred". The emotional reaction to these crimes is a different matter.

Why are you asserting that's what I was talking about?

In any case, I'm curious why certain folk are very interested in spreading that star, but don't spread other stats like female asylum immigrants from "certain groups" have lower crime rates than, say, white men.

No, there are examples of people saying things that break a law getting arrested.

There seems to be this bizarre belief that it's fine to engage in incitement to violence, harassment or stalking, as long as it's done on social media.

It's not. They would be illegal via phone calls and they're still illegal on X or Facebook.

Many of these things are legal in other countries, such as the US.

I wonder if Wordsworth would have been quite as keen on his works being treated as property if he'd known they would be owned by an American corporation by now and his own descendants would have to licence them for any use?