I looked into that category (of small and lightweight laptops, for travel) earlier this year, without the coreboot requirement. I ended up with a Panasonic Let's Note SZ6-CF. Also cheap - imported from Japan via eBay - I think it is better than the X200 series in almost every way, newer, faster, lighter. It might also have a better display than the default of the thinkpads. Only drawback: soldered memory (a crime against the longevity of those machines).

You absolutely can use @ in sane codebases. And you give the example yourself: In other languages you often enough see that boilerplate where thrown exception is discarded, because there is no sane reaction to some edge case and you just want the program to continue, because you know it will work anyway. And that's @.

Note though that @ was already neutered in some earlier recent PHP releases.

This.

One common use case for the @ operator, is when "destructuring" array members into variables. In some cases, you can't know if the member will be available, but it's not important if it's missing. In that case, you can silence the warning.

$array = ['apple', 'pear']; @list($mainFruit, $secondaryFruit, $tertiaryFruit);

Since I suppress the warning that would occur due to the third member not being present, the program will continue executing instead of halting.

I assume it is some inferiority complex, on many sides. PHP itself was laughed at being too simple, underpowered and inconsistent, now they overcorrected with types, annotations and breaking backwards compatibility with every release so that no old code base can remain intact. Frontend devs yearned to be regarded as real developers, which in their context means construction of unwieldly and overcomplex enterprise bullshit, thus typescript etc. And in the backend you have that same mechanism, devs having to prove they are no beginners and thus using (wrongly) design patterns, instructed by software architects, instead of avoiding abstraction and thus complexity.

No, I'm not bitter.

Iirc this stems from owncloud, and a programmer from them gave an interview in a German Foss podcast. Yes, it was performance related. They had high profile clients (CERN?) where the old code base was not sufficient, they thought.

The advantage is the amount of code minimized and not using a generic factory pattern. But that probably can be achieved with a bit less magic...

I wouldn't see it that way.

First, Debian is not a distro where users have to compile their software. The packages contain binaries, the compilation is already done. The instability of Rust would not affect users in any way.

And second, as a developer, I never had a more unpleasant language to work with than Rust. The borrow checker back then was abysmal. Rust is not about developer happiness - Ruby is - but its memory safety makes it a useful option in specific situation. But you can be sure that many developers will avoid it like a plague - and together with the breakage and long compile times that's probably why moves like the one dictated here are so controversial.

> The instability of Rust would not affect users in any way.

Sure it would. Suppose a rust-based package has a security bug. Upstream has fixed it, but that fix depends on some new rust language feature that the frozen version of rust in Debian doesn't have yet.

Then the responsible Debian maintainer would backport that fix, as they have done in other languages for decades. Really, that's not user facing. It's a possible hassle for the maintainers and developers, which might be bad enough, but not a problem for users.

Nice example of physics tumbling into meaningless metaphysical nonsense.

Nice example of hurling meaningless invective.

Oh, that can be bad advice. It does matter a lot if the bank asks for high fees, which would be the case with all(?) German banks, and I'd be surprised if that's different in Switzerland.

Banks don't typically charge any fees for a self-directed account that holds primarily ETFs, beyond maybe a small trade fee or account fee(?) - which we would never pay in North America. Active management of either your account or the products you hold is where they stick it to you. Each product will have a management fee which you should check, but you'll likely avoid the big bank and insurance company products because they do no better than the market funds and take more in fees so the returns suck.

My bank also charges a trade fee which I think is bullshit, but at least it's a major bank. It's like $10 so doesn't matter all that much, not sure how much it would be for Switzerland, but you could just buy the stocks in larger batches if trades are expensive.

With the amount people usually trade $10 is a huge percentage. When you factor that in with the missed compound interest of that money you usually lose tens of thousands of dollars until retirement, likely more.

There is no need for a big bank here, in Europe. If one of those regulated companies goes bankrupt the etf is still yours and transferable to a different institution.

War in Europe is the remaining risk factor, but if that happens it won't matter anyway.

Not sure how it's like over in EU, but in Canada, at this point, I assume all fin tech startups are scam. Neo financial and wealth simple are definitely fucking scam. Major banks may suck but at least you get what you pay for.

Curious about your opinions on WealthSimple, if you can share. I got introduced to them when they bought out SimpleTax, and so far they've been pretty reasonable for investments.

They require a paid subscription to use USD. They claim to have customer support, but the button isn't actually working, it does nothing. At least they respond by email. That's all I found so far, but I haven't actually made any trades yet.

$10 may not feel like much, but it's the proportional costs that you have to figure out.

If that's e.g. for a monthly $1000 investment, it means 1% of your savings is lost in fees each time. That'll be 1% that's not going into savings. If you end up with a million by some time, that small fee will have cost you 1% of that, which is $10k.

"It's just a cup of coffee" -> "that's a 10 000$ cup of coffee". But if you only save 200 a month, that 5% is 200k you've lost by the end.

One percent is often considered a reasonable cost ratio, but it's definitely worth considering what the real numbers are for a given option.

For the plattforms, that also blocked me for a while. But it is easy now. You just get one account at a platform that offers a free broker account and supports buying the etf you want without extra fees.

Typical options in Europe: Trade Republic, scalable, Consors Bank.

Then the usual: Around 10K where you can access it directly, a small amount in an investment with percentage (scalable and trade republic both offer that, limit there is or was 50k), rest in one broad ETF like one that follows the FTSE all world (vanguard or invesco offer that, one is bigger, the other asks for less fees).

No affiliation, and I dont know whether being outside of the EU changes things. And yes, there is the risk that we are in a huge bubble now and it popping would at first significantly lower the money put into the etf. But you certainly do have access to vanguard etc.

Have a look now and at the latest this weekend you have this solved, hopefully forever.

Careful there, thats a rightwing propaganda point. Immigration into an aging society does not raise healthcare costs, it lowers it. See https://archive.is/XxfTH (and note that this is a NZZ article, a right-wing publication by now, so not slanted towards being immigration friendly).

Are people ever allowed to criticize migration?

Who's not being allowed to criticize immigration? Critique of a critique is pretty much the furthest thing from "disallowing" critique.

Sure, but it helps to not misrepresent the facts while you do it

Misrepresenting???

The costs DID increase.

I did not try to make a political statement, what happened here, anyway???

I have no idea what there is to defend - even if you assume they will all get high-paying jobs some ay, for the first few years costs will increase while they either learn the language, are not allowed to work (status pending), or get minimum wage jobs (food delivery and parcel services at least in my city now is dominated by immigrants).

Even with your most positive outlook, initially there will be lots more people and the same system (number of doctors), and the numbers of payers increases slowly.

I even wrote "but more so aging population", conveniently overlooked in this strange politicized discussion.

I am NOT against immigration!!! Don't make stuff up people.

You are misreading this exchange. You just got a fact wrong, but thus repeated a lie that is planted often by nazis - and it's easy to get mislead. Anyway, you did not get criticized for an imagined stance on immigration, but those answers are to a comment I assume you missed, the one by nxor?

You wrote, incorrectly:

> We also have lots of our own problems and increasing costs because of immigration

As the NZZ article explained, health care / Krankenkassen are the area where it is the clearest that immigration is an economic benefit. Look at statements like the section title "Krankenkassen profitieren", followed by "Ein grosser Profiteur der Zuwanderung sind dagegen wohl die Krankenkassen." and the ending paragraph of said section:

> Laut dieser Analyse gab es in diesen sieben Jahren einen Wanderungssaldo aus dem Ausland in Höhe von 4,7 Millionen Menschen in das System der GKV. Für das Jahr 2019 ergab sich daraus eine Entlastung der GKV über etwa 8 Milliarden Euro (umgerechnet 0,6 Beitragssatzpunkte). Seit 2019 hätten sich die Rahmenbedingungen aber deutlich geändert, heisst es dazu von der TK.

So the numbers we have do not support that part of your statements. And I'm not aware of newer numbers that say the contrary - the recent cost increase sees completely different reasons for example, as in https://www.mdr.de/nachrichten/deutschland/panorama/krankenk..., the "but more so aging population" part of your comment fits there.