The story No 10 is telling is clear enough and answers the headline directly - the FO was trying to ensure Starmer didn’t know so he’d be able to say he didn’t know if it came out.

Fairly plausible but you have to wonder what No 10 said to make the FO think this was important enough to go through with it in spite of serious security concerns.

Aaaaaaaaaa

Our World in Data has more useful figures that attempt to be comparable. In short, it very strongly contradicts that table.

No, anti-reflective coatings are not matte. They work by producing destructive interference in a target band of wavelengths right at the surface of the coated material from front and rear reflections. Because the effect is wavelength specific, they tend to tint the colour of the reflection, as well, allowing you to tell when they’ve been applied.

Yes, but dynamic resize typically means copying all of the old data to the new destination, whereas a linked list does not need to do this. The time complexity of reading a large quantity of data into a linked list is O(N), but reading it into an array can end up being O(N^2) or at best O(N log N).

You can make the things in your list big chunks so that you don’t pay much penalty on cache performance.

I thought of another good example situation: a text buffer for an editor. If you use an array, then on large documents inserting a character at the beginning of the document requires you to rewrite the rest of the array, every single character, to move everything up. If you use a linked list of chunks, you can cap the amount of rewriting you need to do at the size of a single chunk.

What would you use if you don’t know how much space you were going to need in advance, and you were gonna only read the data once for every time the structure got created.

Not really. It has to be enough brighter than the reflection that it’s not visually disturbing. And that criterion depends on what’s displayed: a high contrast image is much more robust than a bright single colour which is much more robust than a dark single colour.

Screens nowadays have anti-reflective coatings to make the brightness of a reflection far, far less than the actual light source if you looked directly at it.

I see you’ve misunderstood me by thinking that I was replying to a specific question that you didn’t ask.

I was responding to the whole post.

That’s true, if you’re replacing a fairly nice car with a bike that’s not for racing, you will always save money.

I first commuted by bike in northwest Germany where most everyone bought their bike from a humongous bike market held every month. It was fairly unusual to see anyone riding a fancy bike, compare to the thousands of bike commuters you’d see every day.

What I always thought was funny compared to some other countries, is that you were as likely to get overtaken by a little old lady in a long skirt as by a lycra-clad young athlete. Somehow that seemed to dispel the concerns a newbie might have about their own pace.

No.

Not a shitpost?

A cheap wheel is like £100 new though and easy to replace. So sure, that’s another point in favour of disc brakes, but buying a new wheel every few years is, I would say, not worth worrying about - even if you are doing that kind of distance. (I wasn’t and had to replace a wheel, either I used worn brakes for too long or something got on the rim and wore it down very quickly) so I would still say used bikes are a good shout.

Also, you can pick up a rideable used bike for £200, maintain nothing except the chain, then buy another used bike, and you’ll likely still end up spending less money than if you’d bought new and maintained everything fussily.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying your approach is bad! But for someone considering getting a bike and worried about the outlay (as the OP was), buying used is very much a good idea.

I dunno what typical yearly mileage on a bike used for commuting is… mine certainly did not do 5000km when I was commuting by bike. So your experience might be a bit more frequent maintenance than what most people need to do.

But either way, a used bike is still likely to be pretty easy to maintain. Maybe you’re thinking of some specific harder-to-maintain parts? Brakes are a good example; rim brakes wear out quite quickly and are harder to replace the pads on than disc brakes. However, they’re still dirt cheap and they’re still not hard to replace. I, a cack-handed moron, learnt how to do it fairly easily.

XD

I said that explicitly so that you wouldn’t think it was some kind of gotcha, so I don’t know why that was your reply. Not all dictionaries agree with MW.

It’s called an attributive noun, by the way.

I feel like the fact that you aren’t subscribing to “the salt is table” usage, nor coming up with any nouns that are not adjectives, indicates you also don’t really think that attributive nouns are adjectives. So let’s disagree with Merriam-Webster together! Yay!

Jesus Christ, you’re not supposed to eat the tinfoil you know

How waterproof is your laptop?

So what is “table food”? If I ask what kind of salt you have, might you reply, “oh, it’s table”?

To look at it another way, can you give me an example of a noun that is not an adjective?

I’ll freely say that I disagree with Merriam Webster here…

Yes actually

Those are noun phrases formed of two nouns