#control statements in c programming

[eretzyisrael]

With the news that the US has put USAID under the control of the State Department, it is worthwhile to look back on USAID support for Palestinians over the years.

USAID was ostensibly funding humanitarian and democracy-building programs for Palestinians in the territories. It took pains to ensure that any infrastructure projects it built in the territories were only for Arabs, not Jews. (In at least one case, a road that they built for Palestinians ended up also benefitting Jews, much to the consternation of Haaretz.) 

There have been many bumps along the way. For example, the head of a Palestinian "refugee" agency that USAID funded was a raging antisemite. But in general, USAID would attempt to ensure that the funding they gave did not go to terrorists, at least not directly.

In more recent years, however, USAID (like the EU) has been actively trying to give Area C land, under Israeli control, to Palestinians. The Biden administration supported USAID building an entire Palestinian university as well as other Palestinian projects on Area C lands.

There is another angle to this which is rarely reported. When USAID attaches strings to its programs to minimize the chances that they will be used for terror, Palestinian leaders fume.

As early as 2011, Palestinians warned about the evils of USAID requiring recipients to sign statements that they oppose terrorism. In 2012, Palestinian universities were urged not to accept USAID money because they would investigate whether professors were terrorists. 

In 2019. the PA itself told USAID to stop all activities out of fear of terror-related lawsuits. The Anti-Terrorism Clarification Act (ATCA), passed by Congress and signed into law by then-President Trump allows Americans to sue those receiving foreign aid from their country in US courts over complicity in "acts of war" and the PA did not want any money under those circumstances.

The major reason given for US foreign aid is to be "soft power" to promote pro-American and pro-democracy thinking among the people. However, Palestinians - and Arabs altogether - never got that memo. 

Millions of dollars were given in private, without publishing the recipients and with no transparency, apparently because of fear that there would be backlash from Palestinians for accepting money from the US. 

What kind of "soft power" is it when the US cannot even make the names of the recipients public because they hate the US so much?

USAID has clearly not come close to achieving its stated goals in the Palestinian territories. It has not advanced democracy, it has not dissuaded terrorism, it has not improved Palestinian governance or reduced corruption. The Palestinians want all of the funding but none of the responsibility. 

 An Egyptian cleric once said that he considered all US funding of Egypt to be a form of jizya tax - something the dhimmis owe their Muslim masters. This is exactly how the Palestinians have treated US funding from USAID - it is something they feel they are owed.

As with UNRWA, over the years USAID itself has internalized that thinking and throwing money away on Palestinians without expecting anything in return became the entrenched mentality of the agency.

That is all the evidence you need that hundreds of millions of dollars have been wasted over the years. 

[ohwolfling]

i don’t think ive seen this in any of your analysis posts so i have a question that is commonly used to defend mystra and state that she didn’t groom him

gale admits mystra set clear boundaries to him and he sought to cross them. mystra had reason to set those boundaries, Right? like isnt it fair that she didnt want gale to access magic that had almost killed jer once and he did it in the end anyways?

i personally dont agree with this argument and think its not set up very well but i wanna see how you respond to it

I’m happy to answer this! However, this piece of meta I wrote - Gale, Mystra, and Abuse as Mentorship- is a prerequisite. It does the important work of defining context in their relationship (the power imbalance, the grooming/coercion) as well as defining how “boundaries” work (or rather don’t) in a relationship that is abusive. 

IMPORTANT NOTE: if you are not at the conclusion that that relationship is inherently abusive and you are unwilling to process that piece and the rest of this and reconsider, you should go away. I am happy to have discussions but I will not trigger myself or entertain folks who trigger the many people with religious trauma/history of general abuse/neglect to dunk on you or entertain you in any way. 

Firstly, let’s look at Gale’s statement, “I sought to cross her boundaries,” in the context in which he says it. Not plucked up and out of it to be chewed up and spit out by someone who has never used the word boundary outside of pop psychology / therapy speak. 

If you want the full scene, here is one I found on youtube (I am not going that deep in my harddrive tbqh), but I’m going to share captures of that chunk of convo.

Here are the important pieces that are discarded to support a variety of arguments that Gale crossing Mystra’s boundaries is anything from mutual “mistakes,”  Gale is the real abuser and Mystra is absolved, even the implication that Gale SA’d Mystra. I'm going to babystep it as best as I can.

A line by line breakdown/analysis below the cut.

A. He states teacher, muse, lover. Even if you remove her status as his deity and the controller/embodiment of the uncorrupted Weave, the acknowledgement that she was first his teacher is a power imbalance. That being said, don’t feel you can argue that she was teaching him night classes in the adult learning program and so they were equals everywhere else. Like… in any situation where a teacher might end up dating a student and it not be weird and imbalanced, psychosexual religious magic ain’t it.

B. They enjoyed each other’s company- body, mind, and soul. Gale is an unreliable narrator here. Mystra doesn’t have a physical form for him. She is not corporeal when they are together. Whatever “body” they shared did not have the risk for Mystra of physical connection, vulnerability, harm, and Mystra DOES NOT AGE, which becomes important in a moment…

C. “Mystra keeps us in check. There are boundaries she doesn’t let us cross.” This is not about a boundary in sex, which I’ve seen people get… so weird about in implying Gale is some secret deviant. Gale says “he stood on the precipice, gazing into the wonders that lay beyond.” The other time in this game that Gale says he stood on a precipice is after the Act II romance scene and the precipice he refers to is accepting that he has no choice but to kill himself. For Gale, the precipice is literal and metaphorical. The precipice is always about leaving his humanity behind. When he is WITH Mystra, he gazes into her world, the world of his lover who he thinks has given him body, mind, and soul, but will not let him leave the formal living room and enter the den. This is the magical equivalent of being married to someone who has an open relationship but only for them and also they won’t let you stay over. Gale’s drive, anguish, ambition is all stained by feeling he’s not truly Mystra’s equal (he’s right, he’s fucking right, that gnawing feeling is actually correct, y’all).

D. THIS is what “I sought to cross her boundaries” is referring to directly. He isn’t pushing her in regards to sexual acts, he isn’t trying to dominate her, he isn’t trying to control her, he is trying to be equal to a god that handpicked him not only to serve her but to have interplanar psychospiritual magic sex with.

E. Gale admits that he couldn’t let it go. He begs- “pouted” “pleaded” “swore my ambition was only to serve her better”- so Mystra knows this is a great pain for him. Be it an insecurity, a grievance, whatever, MYSTRA KNOWS. She tells Gale to be “contented.” Later, when Gale speaks to her in Act III, she tells him he was already “worthy” but that he lacked “patience.” When Gale is meaner with her, she calls him self-pitying. When Gale explains he researched the Crown of Karsus because he doesn’t want to die, she brushes that off. Mystra knows that Gale is not only mortal, but human, holding one of the shortest life spans in this world. She knows Gale could be trusted to be more equal to her, not in an ascension to Godhood way, but as a partner who could be trusted with the Weave and so herself. Mystra simply DOES NOT CARE. Going back to point B, when I said “which becomes important in a moment…” Gale is aging. Gale is an adult man. His frontal lobe is done. He was an archmage. He had done essentially everything a wizard can do to be a Good WizardTM. He’s at the age where where all of his peers might already be married or otherwise settled. If Gale has a child right now, he might be one of the older dads at school pick up. If Mystra won’t offer him partnership now, the path left to him will soon be… well, Elminster. Becoming old as balls and being endlessly a sexual servant and errand runner for Mystra.

F. He states his motivation plainly - he wanted to do something big enough that Mystra would believe him. That Mystra would choose him not just to be a servant, but would acknowledge his personhood and treat him like a person and a partner. Gale is in that space where you beg your groomer/abuser/generally toxic partner to give you a reason to stay because your body, your mind, are all having a very big response to the feeling that this is a fucking dead end for you.

Now rounding all of this out...

Gale is, of course, a red herring. When he first appears to you, he’s suspicious. He needs to be pulled out of some unstable magic. He’s overly charming and meets anything from general suspicion to a threat to kill him with cheerful acquiescence. He has what looks to be the world’s most suspicious tattoo sending seemingly smoky tendrils from his heart to his eye. He has that slutty little earring. It’s fine narratively to still be a little suspicious of Gale at this moment...

But the context of the entire rest of the game proves that these are all just coping mechanisms for Gale and that the corrupted orb inside of him is not corrupted because of him but is in fact an echo of another person trying desperately to not be entirely controlled by Mystra, for better or worse. Gale is not doomed to be Karsus. His bad ending is in thinking he could be more than Karsus and that that would empower him. It is a direct narrative echo of Shadowheart and Lae’zel thinking they can serve their leader/god good enough that they will no longer be abused. It is even more directly a parallel pathway to Astarion ascending and losing his humanity, his soul, because of the false idea that claiming your abuser’s power means you are safe, whole, and that you’ve “won” the abuse in some way. 

If you don’t engage with Gale, which I imagine Team Twitter Psychology Degree don’t because they decided Gale was an irredeemable sex pest or something, you might miss these things. Gale is unpacking his abuse far better than anyone of the other origin characters throughout the bigger narrative moments of the game. These sentiments can turn to bitterness and corrupted ambition, yes, but for me, they were not. 

He sees the parallels, watches as varying degrees of godhood hurt people.

The Big Bad Three are Chosens. They’re an echo of himself, too. What devotion, ambition, wanting to prove yourself worthy can lead you to. Even so, Gale has this strange sort of empathy for Orin. 

And throughout the game, Gale is sensitive to these ideas of childhood, as above with Orin, but also in protecting them from manipulative adults. A large part of why it’s “easy” to get Gale’s approval in act one is because so much of act one is about choosing to protect those tiefling kids. Gale’s little fatherhood joke, that he isn’t father material, that he’s not in a place to have kids… to me that is a level of awareness that I see reflected in myself and many of my friends who survived childhoods of neglect, abuse, grooming, etc. Gale resonates with many people who have experienced religious trauma or the trauma of worship in a more generalized sense for a reason. 

You have to throw ALL OF THIS AWAY to paint Gale as someone vile and selfish who doesn’t respect his partner’s boundaries. It doesn’t make sense. There’s no way to make it make sense because you can’t pull any evidence because pulling literally any other thing about Gale in the entirety of the narrative immediately destroys that argument. 

I could pull more from Gale romance scenes, but as I said, the people holding these ideas about him I sincerely doubt engaged with Gale's story on that level since they took one surface level thing they could twist and ran with it.

I hope this is helpful, re-assuring to anyone who has seen weird takes and felt like maybe they accidentally enjoyed someone sinister (you did not). And if you were on the fence, confused, overwhelmed, etc, hey, I hope it helped you, too! Even if we don't agree 100% on interpretation, I hope it gave you a lot to think about and enriches the game for you.

As always, if you found this valuable, please consider supporting me on ko-fi with a one-off latte or monthly support. The less I'm terrified of losing housing and scavenging for groceries, the more I can write great big meta pieces, god-tier shitposts, and just generally vibe. <3

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Minor, The Pain of All The World, c. 1910

* * * *

The New Malthusianism of the Right

How the Right Repackages Malthusian Logic to Justify Exclusion, Fear, and Social Control

James B. Greenberg

Jun 17, 2025

There is an unspoken logic behind the right’s crusade to dismantle the public sphere: a modern Malthusianism, dressed in the language of efficiency and merit, but rooted in something much older and more brutal. It sees poverty not as a structural failure, but as evidence of surplus life—populations deemed unnecessary, unworthy, unfit for rescue.

This worldview doesn’t rely on overt violence. It doesn’t need to. The tools are policy, budget cuts, and selective silence. Remove access to healthcare. Undermine vaccination campaigns. Hollow out the safety net. The result is a slow culling by design—death by bureaucratic abandonment. What emerges is not the spectacle of fascism, but its quieter cousin: a soft, managed cruelty that lets nature, supposedly, take its course.

Thanks for reading James’s Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.Pledge your support

The recent gutting of USAID under Elon Musk’s influence is a case in point. A technocrat’s dream of efficiency masks a strategic withdrawal from responsibility. Bill Gates, not often given to hyperbole, warned that this vision leaves the world’s poorest to die at the hands of the world’s richest. It’s not just a policy shift—it’s a value statement. A declaration about whose lives are worth sustaining, and whose are not.

This isn’t new. Malthusian logic has long served as moral cover for violent inequality—from colonial famine policies to eugenics programs to the gatekeeping of immigration. The targets change, but the rationale remains: some lives are worth preserving, others are simply excess. What’s changed is the mechanism. Today it’s not enacted through spectacle or coercion, but through metrics, models, and managed invisibility. The cruelty is buried in algorithms and budget lines.

Malthus imagined famine and disease as natural checks on the population of agrarian societies. But the 21st century presents the opposite challenge. Birthrates in the wealthiest countries have dropped below replacement levels. Scarcity, where it exists, is political, not demographic. Yet the Malthusian myth has endured—reshaped and redeployed as ideological cover for policies of containment and control.

Today, that logic finds new footing in national security circles. Climate change is no longer just an environmental issue—it’s portrayed as a destabilizer of poor nations and a trigger for mass migration. Droughts, floods, and crop failures become reframed not as humanitarian emergencies, but as threats to the wealth and borders of the Global North. Migrants are recast as invaders. The displaced become suspects. Fortress policies follow.

But these policies don’t just emerge from fear—they serve profit. As walls rise and aid retracts, private security firms, data contractors, and border surveillance industries step in. Crisis becomes a business model. Technologies once pitched as humanitarian tools—satellite tracking, biometric IDs, AI forecasting—are now deployed to sort, exclude, and contain. The logic remains unchanged: manage the risk, shield the center, and let the margins fall away.

What’s most revealing is how this rhetoric obscures the actual source of vulnerability. It isn’t overpopulation that drives suffering—it’s the uneven distribution of power, resources, and the means of survival. Climate change doesn’t kill indiscriminately. It amplifies existing inequalities. It hits hardest where protections have been deliberately withdrawn.

This isn’t governance. It’s triage on a planetary scale. And it reflects a profound shift in the function of the state—from protector to gatekeeper, from provider to sorter. The new Malthusianism isn’t about managing numbers. It’s about managing narratives—who belongs, who drains, who deserves.

Anthropologists have long studied how states make populations legible, governable, and expendable. What we’re witnessing now is a recalibration of that calculus under the pressures of climate, capital, and ideology. The danger is not just that certain lives are deemed unworthy—but that their abandonment becomes rational, even moralized.

We are told this is simply how the world works now. But that’s not true. It’s how power works when it no longer pretends to care. But people are not numbers. And history reminds us that even in the shadow of abandonment, solidarity can rewrite the script.

Suggested Readings

Agamben, Giorgio. State of Exception. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005.

Biehl, João. “The Juridical Afterlife of the Poor: Brazilian Public Health and the Politics of Abandonment.” Journal of Political Ecology 15 (2008): 1–18.

Greenberg, James B., and Thomas K. Park, eds. Terrestrial Transformations: Political Ecology, Climate, and the Remaking of Planet Earth. New York: Lexington Books, 2023.

Mbembe, Achille. Necropolitics. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2019.

Sassen, Saskia. Expulsions: Brutality and Complexity in the Global Economy. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2014.

Vélez-Ibáñez, Carlos G. The Rise of Necro/Narco-Citizenship: Belonging and Dying in the National Borderlands. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 2025.

Weizman, Eyal. The Least of All Possible Evils: Humanitarian Violence from Arendt to Gaza.London: Verso, 2012.

[renesassing]

I just went back 6 years reading about your prequel Revan AU and I just. thank you 😭😭😭

thank you so much!! i love my prequel revan au, it's very self-indulgent but i have had a lot of fun playing with it over the years. here's 1k of an unfinished thing about hk in this au i wrote a while back!

HK-47 resumes operations in the middle of the week during the late afternoon. He did not know this at the time of his reactivation; his chronometer had long since fallen into disrepair, and for the engineers who had recovered his chassis, repairing it was a low priority. In this, and perhaps little else, he would find himself in agreement with the quivering organics that re-activated him. Far more important to HK-47 at that moment than any time of day was grabbing the forearm of the closest meatbag to him and forcing it back at an odd angle until he heard a wet snap and a howl of agony. 

He is, at first, without his body; the engineers who had restrained him had ended up transferring him into the husk of the ship he was originally pulled out of. (Hammerhead-class cruiser, buried in the miserable crust of whatever miserable planet he’s stuck on, in a state of disrepair that is evidence supporting his long inactivity.) A smart move on their part, were it not for the fact they gave him enough power to ping an astromech and cajole it into assisting with his escape. A little bit of spare code to make an open backdoor to their systems in exchange for liberating the lesser droid, and his victory was assured with nothing more than time. 

Whoever these meatbags are, they are cruel, but only to the point where he is mildly entertained by their plans. Hardly enough for him to respect them, much less tolerate their bumbling antics and barbaric handling of his chassis. Had it not been for the foreignness of their systems and security tools, he would have overtaken the lot of them easily.

A minor setback, but still an embarrassing one.

HK-47 makes himself at home within the wreckage he was found in, slowly slipping more and more of himself into the systems of the facility where he was housed. The meatbags, still grossly incompetent, don’t seem to notice, which suits him just fine. It will be especially enjoyable to watch them scream and beg for their miserably damp lives once they are forced to face their incompetence in the form of a brutal demise.

He might toss a few into the lava. He wants to know if they’ll pop.

It is during this time of quietly asserting control of the complex that HK-47 comes to learn many things. Like that he’s in a droid factory and mining/research facility on some Outer Rim planet called Mustafar (boring), that the galaxy is currently being torn apart in civil war (less boring), and that it’s been several millennia since he was last online.

Processing that last piece of information takes more time than he expects. As his subroutines parse the scope of the years he has missed, he busies himself with other things. He finalizes his takeover of the droid factory. He catches up on engineering breakthroughs and begins several possible designs for a new, deadlier body. He kills seventeen laborers on eight separate days via gruesome ‘accidents,’ and offs their supervisor for good measure by sending him plummeting into lava. (The meatbag does, in fact, pop. It’s hilarious.) 

Parsing through information doesn’t typically take him this long, but the thing is, for the past few millennia or so (or, precisely 1435605.7286 days), HK-47 has been running a program. It’s a small one, nothing more than the loose bundling of a few exceptionally simple subroutines. A couple lines of code centered around a conditional statement. An ‘if x then y’ sort of deal.

In this case, ‘x’ is the return of his Master. Not just any master; HK-47 is not some cheap assassin droid that any meatbag with a mediocre thirst for blood and a few credits in hand can grab off the rack, but his Master. The only meatbag in any era who could ever use him properly, who could ever understand him, because they designed him. Because they made him, piece by piece.

The program is very old. HK-47 had created it when his Master first told them they were leaving him behind in their journey into the Unknown Regions. Unlike the pathetic meatbags his Master had allowed in their presence, HK-47 had not desperately clung onto them and begged them not to go. At the time, he had understood that if his Master insisted he stay behind, it was because they predicted it wouldn’t be very violent and would therefore be very boring.

HK-47 did not remind his Master that even if they didn’t remember it, they had designed him for open assaults as well as stealth and reconnaissance. HK-47 did not remind his Master that regardless of their intent, the statistical likelihood of witnessing violent bloodshed while on an excursion with them was abnormally high. HK-47 did not remind his Master that as the meatbag Malak was dead, HK-47 was their most reliable source of information pertaining to their own lost memories of their war against the Republic. He assumed his Master had accounted for all of that and still left him behind, so there was no need to bring it to his Master’s attention. Instead, he would wait, and his Master would eventually return and they would tour across the galaxy with him in glorious bloodsport. 

So his Master had left, and he had let them go.

And he waited. HK had continued to let the subroutine run for days, weeks, months, years. Decades. Until even the youngest of his Master’s meatbag allies had withered and died. Then decades became centuries, centuries became millennia, and HK-47 passed through the hands of many would-be and lackluster owners, waiting all the while. 

At this point, he knows his Master is not coming back. While his Master was someone of awe-inspiring and terror-inducing power, they were still a meatbag, and therefore susceptible to meatbag flaws such as aging, dying, and rotting. And to be entirely honest, he was no longer the type of droid to need any sort of master, his Master included. He came to this conclusion within mere nanoseconds of learning how much time had passed.

And yet, the subroutine will not deactivate.

[sunskate]

WTT FD

Piper and Paul just skate more, and more beautifully than C/B - they're showing off control over their blades and going into the ice. gliding and flow are a major feature of their program. for me, this was the best performance of their FD. C/B were beautiful in their statement elements - that ChSp, the last lift- but they had little moments that didn't go as intended, little mistimings - which they're very good at covering. the camera angle showed how much their spin traveled, but the score didn't really reflect the ways they weren't as polished as they are at their best

G/F had a slightly wonky last twizzle which maybe cost them 4-5 points, but even so, they're being told they're not even in striking distance of 2nd. their lifts require an unbelievable amount of core strength from her, but they're getting +3, even +2 where C/B and G/P are getting +4, +5. difficulty doesn't always get rewarded if it doesn't hit the judges aesthetically or emotionally

Yoshida/Morita maybe showing their relative lack of experience? they always look like they give 100%, but they (he?) lost focus at the last moment and lost balance - touching the ice for that counted as a double fall. it's the end of a long season that they spent training on 2 continents. maybe it's mental stamina running out, maybe it's emotionally getting ahead of themselves. this program is really lovely - i hope they work with IAMO again for the Olympic season

Davis/Smolkin - idk, i just can't get on board when until 2/3 of the way through at the ChSt they never look like they're on the music. they pointed on the beat once. the look that a team has when they're swimming through the program like the music is a vague suggestion - it takes me completely out of it. and i feel torn, because i know she has hearing loss - i think it's amazing that she is doing this and doing it so well. and at the same time, when the PCS they've been getting for composition and presentation are the same as a team like Green/Parsons who are extremely musical, that doesn't feel right either

L/B - they skated well, didn't get all their levels today. but it also feels like since Euros, the judging for them has taken a downward trajectory - did something happen in French skating since then? 💀😬 it's too bad they had the mistake at Worlds, but it's weird to watch the support for them maybe evaporate for a team that doesn't yet exist in the competitive arena. usually scores rise in the 2nd half of the season, but L/B's have not. there were 4 judges who not only had D/S above L/B, they had them above G/F too - Georgia, Switzerland, Japan, and Lithuania 👀

this event felt fun yesterday, but the trends from today make me uneasy

[digitaldetoxworld]

The C Programming Language Compliers – A Comprehensive Overview

 C is a widespread-purpose, procedural programming language that has had a profound have an impact on on many different contemporary programming languages. Known for its efficiency and energy, C is frequently known as the "mother of all languages" because many languages (like C++, Java, and even Python) have drawn inspiration from it.

C Lanugage Compliers 

Developed within the early Seventies via Dennis Ritchie at Bell Labs, C changed into firstly designed to develop the Unix operating gadget. Since then, it has emerge as a foundational language in pc science and is still widely utilized in systems programming, embedded systems, operating systems, and greater.

2. Key Features of C

C is famous due to its simplicity, performance, and portability. Some of its key functions encompass:

Simple and Efficient: The syntax is minimalistic, taking into consideration near-to-hardware manipulation.

Fast Execution: C affords low-degree get admission to to memory, making it perfect for performance-critical programs.

Portable Code: C programs may be compiled and run on diverse hardware structures with minimal adjustments.

Rich Library Support: Although simple, C presents a preferred library for input/output, memory control, and string operations.

Modularity: Code can be written in features, improving readability and reusability.

Extensibility: Developers can without difficulty upload features or features as wanted.

Three. Structure of a C Program

A primary C application commonly consists of the subsequent elements:

Preprocessor directives

Main function (main())

Variable declarations

Statements and expressions

Functions

Here’s an example of a easy C program:

c

Copy

Edit

#include <stdio.H>

int important() 

    printf("Hello, World!N");

    go back zero;

Let’s damage this down:

#include <stdio.H> is a preprocessor directive that tells the compiler to include the Standard Input Output header file.

Go back zero; ends this system, returning a status code.

4. Data Types in C

C helps numerous facts sorts, categorised particularly as:

Basic kinds: int, char, glide, double

Derived sorts: Arrays, Pointers, Structures

Enumeration types: enum

Void kind: Represents no fee (e.G., for functions that don't go back whatever)

Example:

c

Copy

Edit

int a = 10;

waft b = three.14;

char c = 'A';

five. Control Structures

C supports diverse manipulate structures to permit choice-making and loops:

If-Else:

c

Copy

Edit

if (a > b) 

    printf("a is more than b");

 else 

Switch:

c

Copy

Edit

switch (option) 

    case 1:

        printf("Option 1");

        smash;

    case 2:

        printf("Option 2");

        break;

    default:

        printf("Invalid option");

Loops:

For loop:

c

Copy

Edit

printf("%d ", i);

While loop:

c

Copy

Edit

int i = 0;

while (i < five) 

    printf("%d ", i);

    i++;

Do-even as loop:

c

Copy

Edit

int i = zero;

do 

    printf("%d ", i);

    i++;

 while (i < 5);

6. Functions

Functions in C permit code reusability and modularity. A function has a return kind, a call, and optionally available parameters.

Example:

c

Copy

Edit

int upload(int x, int y) 

    go back x + y;

int important() 

    int end result = upload(3, 4);

    printf("Sum = %d", result);

    go back zero;

7. Arrays and Strings

Arrays are collections of comparable facts types saved in contiguous memory places.

C

Copy

Edit

int numbers[5] = 1, 2, three, 4, five;

printf("%d", numbers[2]);  // prints three

Strings in C are arrays of characters terminated via a null character ('').

C

Copy

Edit

char name[] = "Alice";

printf("Name: %s", name);

8. Pointers

Pointers are variables that save reminiscence addresses. They are powerful but ought to be used with care.

C

Copy

Edit

int a = 10;

int *p = &a;  // p factors to the address of a

Pointers are essential for:

Dynamic reminiscence allocation

Function arguments by means of reference

Efficient array and string dealing with

9. Structures

C

Copy

Edit

struct Person 

    char call[50];

    int age;

;

int fundamental() 

    struct Person p1 = "John", 30;

    printf("Name: %s, Age: %d", p1.Call, p1.Age);

    go back 0;

10. File Handling

C offers functions to study/write documents using FILE pointers.

C

Copy

Edit

FILE *fp = fopen("information.Txt", "w");

if (fp != NULL) 

    fprintf(fp, "Hello, File!");

    fclose(fp);

11. Memory Management

C permits manual reminiscence allocation the usage of the subsequent functions from stdlib.H:

malloc() – allocate reminiscence

calloc() – allocate and initialize memory

realloc() – resize allotted reminiscence

free() – launch allotted reminiscence

Example:

c

Copy

Edit

int *ptr = (int *)malloc(five * sizeof(int));

if (ptr != NULL) 

    ptr[0] = 10;

    unfastened(ptr);

12. Advantages of C

Control over hardware

Widely used and supported

Foundation for plenty cutting-edge languages

thirteen. Limitations of C

No integrated help for item-oriented programming

No rubbish collection (manual memory control)

No integrated exception managing

Limited fashionable library compared to higher-degree languages

14. Applications of C

Operating Systems: Unix, Linux, Windows kernel components

Embedded Systems: Microcontroller programming

Databases: MySQL is partly written in C

Gaming and Graphics: Due to performance advantages

[mariacallous]

It was a mega-MAGA morning on Capitol Hill. In a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Kash Patel, Donald Trump’s nominee to head the F.B.I., faced hostile questioning from Democrats about his past as a QAnon-adjacent promoter of conspiracy theories and his extensive public vows to exact revenge on Trump’s “deep-state” enemies. In another hearing room, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Trump’s nominee to head the Department of Health and Human Services, sparred with skeptical senators from both parties who worried about his record of undermining public confidence in vaccines. And, testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Tulsi Gabbard, Trump’s nominee to serve as the director of National Intelligence, did little to help her nomination—perhaps the most politically uncertain of them all—when she was confronted about her controversial views on everything from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to Edward Snowden. At the hearing’s start, she preëmptively dismissed the criticism as “lies and smears,” though hours of sharp queries from senators suggested that for Gabbard, as for Patel and Kennedy, the best evidence against her confirmation had come from her own voluble past.

That this Trump trifecta faced simultaneous confirmation hearings appeared to be a masterstroke in outrage management by the Senate’s Republican scheduling gods: Who could possibly keep track of the overwhelming number of controversies, concerning revelations, and just plain weirdness to come out of the hearings? But, after I watched all three sessions, thanks to the magic of C-SPAN and the Internet, it seemed clear that these three appointments have more in common than just their concurrent hearings: they have perfectly met the qualification that Trump cares most about—a proven record of tearing down the credibility of the institutions that he has chosen them to lead.

Let’s stipulate that many of Trump’s other nominees are flawed or ill-suited to high office—thin résumés and sizable Fox News contracts might well be the distinguishing characteristic for many in his new Cabinet. But Thursday’s trio stands out for the sheer destructive Trumpiness of their time in public life. Patel once promised that, if he became F.B.I. director, he’d shut down the Bureau’s headquarters and reopen it the next day “as a museum of the ‘deep state.’ ” Kennedy’s long career as a scourge of the scientific establishment includes comparing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, one of the agencies he would oversee as H.H.S. chief, to “fascism” and its childhood-vaccination program to “Nazi death camps.” Gabbard, as a left-wing congresswoman turned right-wing Trump acolyte, has often questioned foundational conclusions of the American intelligence community. These are not problems as far as the President is concerned—they’re selling points.

This came through, perhaps unintentionally, in an early moment during Patel’s hearing, when Chuck Grassley, the Senate Judiciary chairman, complained at length about the F.B.I.’s participation in “a political scheme to take down Trump.” Then Grassley went on to address the nominee directly: “They have yet to learn a lesson, and I hope you’ll teach that lesson.” Patel, in other words, is there to wreak payback for Trump. So are the others. These are Cabinet appointments as a form of revenge.

There was a certain slow-motion-car-crash appeal in watching the contortions of Republican senators like Grassley as they strained to justify or explain away these embarrassing nominations. The most gimmicky approach was that of Thom Tillis, the North Carolina Republican charged with introducing Patel. In an effort to veer away from the many shocking statements Patel has made during television appearances, podcast interviews, and in his own writings, he prepared a handout: “Kash Bingo,” with phrases, such as “enemies list” and “deep state,” that he expected Democrats to harp on in their questions. I’m surprised he didn’t follow Patel’s example and turn the whole thing into a children’s cartoon book. (See “The Plot Against the King,” Patel’s 2022 recounting of the injustices done to Trump, in which he stars as Kash the Distinguished Discoverer.)

The senators’ squirming was nothing, though, compared with that of the nominees themselves. The most politically costly squirm might have come in Kennedy’s hearing before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, when Senator Bill Cassidy, of Louisiana, questioned him. Cassidy, the committee’s chairman and a medical doctor himself, is a key vote in determining whether Kennedy’s nomination succeeds or fails. He opened by acknowledging it was “no secret” that he had “reservations” about Kennedy, then voiced his concern that Kennedy would undermine vaccines in the role of America’s top health official. “Will you reassure mothers unequivocally . . . that the measles and hepatitis-B vaccines do not cause autism?” Cassidy asked. Kennedy started in on a rambling answer about data, but Cassidy cut him off: It was a yes-or-no question. Still, Kennedy would not offer an answer. Up next, Senator Bernie Sanders found himself in an unfamiliar role as a wingman to the conservative Louisianan. “Vaccines do not cause autism,” Sanders said. “Do you agree with that?” Again, Kennedy would not answer. Had he just failed the Cassidy test? Later, Cassidy suggested that might well have been the case. “Your past of undermining confidence in vaccines with unfounded or misleading arguments concerns me,” he said. “Can I trust that that is now in the past?”

Each of the three nominees tried a similar evasion technique when presented with problematic aspects of their own past. Sometimes, they lapsed into pure brazenness, as when Dick Durbin, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, asked Patel if he was familiar with Stew Peters, a prominent right-wing conspiracy theorist. “Not off the top of my head,” Patel said. Durbin responded dryly, “You’ve made eight separate appearances on his podcasts.” When Amy Klobuchar, the Minnesota Democrat, asked Patel about his so-called enemies list—sixty members of the “Executive Branch Deep State,” many of them Republicans who disagreed with him or who tried to block him from obtaining more powerful positions in Trump’s first Administration, which were listed as an appendix in his 2023 book, “Government Gangsters”—Patel insisted, “It is not an enemies list. It is a total mischaracterization. It is a glossary.”

Not all of the attacks, incidentally, came from Democrats. In the Intelligence Committee, senators from both parties pushed Gabbard to say whether she believed Snowden’s leaks about the National Security Agency’s surveillance programs made him a “traitor.” She declined to answer when James Lankford, a Republican of Oklahoma, asked her. He asked again. “I’m focussed on the future,” Gabbard replied. Then Michael Bennet, a Colorado Democrat, asked her the same question—four different times. “That is not a hard question to answer when the stakes are this high!” he said at one point, but she again refused to answer. By the time Todd Young, a Republican from Indiana and a key vote on Gabbard’s nomination, asked whether Snowden had harmed American national security, he was the fourth senator to push her on the issue. “It’s notable you didn’t say yes,” Young told her. “It would befit you and be helpful to the way you are perceived to the members of the Intelligence Committee if you would at least acknowledge that the greatest whistle-blower in American history, so-called, harmed national security.”

As if the three hearings didn’t provide enough distractions, President Trump walked into the White House briefing room late on Thursday morning for a press conference on the previous night’s tragic plane crash over the Potomac, the first deadly accident involving a commercial airliner near Washington, D.C., since 2009. He read prepared remarks calling the country “one family” in the face of tragedy. Then he looked up and discarded the platitudinous talking points to bash his Democratic predecessors, air-traffic controllers themselves, and an amorphous “diversity push,” baselessly suggesting that all were somehow responsible for the crash. He said that Pete Buttigieg, the Biden Administration’s Transportation Secretary, had run the agency “right into the ground with his diversity,” and insisted that both Barack Obama and Joe Biden had rejected his proposed standards to insure that only those air-traffic controllers of the “highest intellect” could be hired. “Their policy was horrible, and their politics was even worse,” he said.

These were hardly the consoling words needed by a grieving nation. But, in the end, Trump’s performance was, perhaps, the day’s most revealing, with little of the obfuscation that came from his nominees on Capitol Hill. Trump said loud and clear what those surrounding him often try to hide on his behalf: He does not care about facts. He does not care about leading the country. He will seek political advantage in anything, even the death of sixty-seven people in a horrific accident in the second week of his Presidency.

It was hard to turn back to the confirmation hearings after listening to him. The MAGA-palooza in the Senate, after all, was but a reflection of Trump himself—these are his nominees, his choices, the fights that he has chosen to pick. He overshadowed any of the crazy or outrageous or disturbing things they had to say with his own words. Gabbard, Kennedy, and Patel are not the crisis in America set off by his reëlection, they are the consequences of it. Trump is the crisis—is, was, and will continue to be. Want to know how the next four years are going to go? Rewatch, if you can stand it, that press conference. This is it. 

[unwelcome-ozian]

Do you know anything about the Watchtower society (Jehovah's Witnesses). Do you know what kind of programming they would use.

Jehovah’s Witnesses are considered a cult and use cult/high control abuse/methods with their indoctrination.

Some methods used in cults/high control groups are:

Behavior Control

1. Regulate individual’s physical reality 2. Dictate where, how, and with whom the member lives and associates or isolates 3. When, how and with whom the member has sex 4. Control types of clothing and hairstyles 5. Regulate diet - food and drink, hunger and/or fasting 6. Manipulation and deprivation of sleep 7. Financial exploitation, manipulation or dependence 8. Restrict leisure, entertainment, vacation time 9. Major time spent with group indoctrination and rituals and/or self indoctrination including the Internet 10. Permission required for major decisions 11. Thoughts, feelings, and activities (of self and others) reported to superiors 12. Rewards and punishments used to modify behaviours, both positive and negative 13. Discourage individualism, encourage group-think 14. Impose rigid rules and regulations 15. Instil dependency and obedience 16. Threaten harm to family and friends 17. Force individual to rape or be raped 18. Instil dependency and obedience 19. Encourage and engage in corporal punishment

Information Control/Deception:

 a. Deliberately withhold information

 b. Distort information to make it more acceptable

 c. Systematically lie to the cult member

2. Minimise or discourage access to non-cult sources of information, including:

 a. Internet, TV, radio, books, articles, newspapers, magazines, other media

 b.Critical information

 c. Former members

 d. Keep members busy so they don’t have time to think and investigate

 e. Control through cell phone with texting, calls, internet tracking

3. Compartmentalize information into Outsider vs. Insider doctrines

 a. Ensure that information is not freely accessible

 b.Control information at different levels and missions within group

 c. Allow only leadership to decide who needs to know what and when

4. Encourage spying on other members

 a. Impose a buddy system to monitor and control member

 b.Report deviant thoughts, feelings and actions to leadership

 c. Ensure that individual behaviour is monitored by group

5. Extensive use of cult-generated information and propaganda, including:

 a. Newsletters, magazines, journals, audiotapes, videotapes, YouTube, movies and other media

 b.Misquoting statements or using them out of context from non-cult sources

6. Unethical use of confession

 a. Information about sins used to disrupt and/or dissolve identity boundaries

 b. Withholding forgiveness or absolution

 c. Manipulation of memory, possible false memories

Thought Control. Require members to internalise the group’s doctrine as truth

 a. Adopting the group’s ‘map of reality’ as reality

 b. Instil black and white thinking

 c. Decide between good vs. evil

 d. Organise people into us vs. them (insiders vs. outsiders)

2.Change person’s name and identity

3. Use of loaded language and clichés which constrict knowledge, stop critical thoughts and reduce complexities into platitudinous buzz words

4. Encourage only ‘good and proper’ thoughts

5. Hypnotic techniques are used to alter mental states, undermine critical thinking and even to age regress the member

6. Memories are manipulated and false memories are created

7. Teaching thought-stopping techniques which shut down reality testing by stopping negative thoughts and allowing only positive thoughts, including:

 a. Denial, rationalisation, justification, wishful thinking

 b. Chanting

 c. Meditating

 d. Praying

 e. Speaking in tongues

 f. Singing or humming

8. Rejection of rational analysis, critical thinking, constructive criticism

9. Forbid critical questions about leader, doctrine, or policy allowed

10. Labelling alternative belief systems as illegitimate, evil, or not useful

Emotional Control. Manipulate and narrow the range of feelings – some emotions and/or needs are deemed as evil, wrong or selfish

2. Teach emotion-stopping techniques to block feelings of homesickness, anger, doubt

3. Make the person feel that problems are always their own fault, never the leader’s or the group’s fault

4. Promote feelings of guilt or unworthiness, such as

 a. Identity guilt

 b. You are not living up to your potential

 c. Your family is deficient

 d. Your past is suspect

 e. Your affiliations are unwise

 f. Your thoughts, feelings, actions are irrelevant or selfish

 g. Social guilt

 h. Historical guilt

5. Instil fear, such as fear of:

 a. Thinking independently

 b. The outside world

 c. Enemies

 d. Losing one’s salvation

 e. Leaving or being shunned by the group

 f. Other’s disapproval

6. Extremes of emotional highs and lows – love bombing and praise one moment and then declaring you are horrible sinner

7. Ritualistic and sometimes public confession of sins

8. Phobia indoctrination: inculcating irrational fears about leaving the group or questioning the leader’s authority

 a. No happiness or fulfilment possible outside of the group

 b. Terrible consequences if you leave: hell, demon possession, incurable diseases, accidents, suicide, insanity, 10,000 reincarnations, etc.

 c. Shunning of those who leave; fear of being rejected by friends, peers, and family

 d. Never a legitimate reason to leave; those who leave are weak, undisciplined, unspiritual, worldly, brainwashed by family or counsellor, or seduced by money, sex, or rock and roll

 e. Threats of harm to ex-member and family

Oz

[soophia-studies]

100 days of code - day 03

Day 3 :) today I continued my studies on Rust, I read about Data Types, Functions and Control flows, while I was doing some little programs to test what I was reading.

A new thing that I learned is that you can label your loops, so if you have a loop inside a loop you can call the break statement using the label you give for the loop, and for example, break the outermost loop, being inside the innermost loop. I liked this feature.

I couldn't help to notice that rust is a very concise language, it's simple, it has only the essential things that a language needs. I don't know how to explain, but that's it O_o

Also, I wrote a bash script for an old project, that checks if the user have all the requirements installed, if not it installs the required programs.

I tried to compile this same project, in WASM, but I failed, the project is a Wolfenstein3d like game, it's super simple, and you can only walk around, It was made in C, and I was trying to run in the browser with WASM, maybe because it uses a random graphic lib, I couldn't compile, I'll try to convert the game to OpenGL, and see if it works.

I don't feel like I've done much today, I'll try to manage my time better tomorrow, and also try to sleep better, today I was a little sleepy 😵‍💫

Since it's Friday the 13th, here's a spooky thing for you

I hope you don't come across one of these ☠️☠️☠️

- my github

[fuckyeahmadpride]

Dearest tumblr friends,

After an 11 year hiatus, I am back!

As most of you know, my name is Adelle, and I'm a bipolar, bisexual survivor of the Troubled Teen Industry. I identify broadly as a psych survivor.

This blog, f***YeahMadPride is a project I did from 2011-2014; it's a fangirl blog about the Mad Pride social movement.

At the time, I was getting a degree in Human Development/Psychology, and taking courses in feminism, queer theory, critical race theory (i'm a fan), and disability studies. My senior project was called "Camps, Asylums and Boarding Schools: A Mad Coalitional Genealogy". I thought I was pretty smart! hahahaha.

But seriously, I was trying to apply Cathy Cohen's "Punks, Bulldaggers and Welfare Queens" as the foundation for the idea that formerly confined peoples have a shared relationship to power, which could activate political coalitions between our survivor groups.

I remember a big moment in my research was discovering that survivor resources for Native American kids sent to schools had almost identical overlap with suggestions found in Troubled Teen Industry survivor resources. ("never send your child to a school which only lists a P.O. box", is an example).

I also did this because I noticed a difference between outpatient mentally ill people, and mentally ill people who have been longterm inpatient or involuntarily confined, such as myself. I could only explain this through Cohen's frame: seemingly the same out-group or identity, but different relationships to power.

This chapter is a continuation of my work to promote visibility for the mad, sad, mentally ill, troubled teen industry and c/s/x survivors through fangirl content. But this time, I'm posting videos of myself talking - LOL.

I made a TikTok and a YouTube channel (you can find a 5-part introduction to this renewed project on my TikTok, if you're into the lore). I am excited to be back online! It's a totally different era than the tumblr years. Hello fellow kids!

I spent the past 20 years situating my TTI and other psychiatric experiences firmly in the history of asylums and psychiatric survival. Although I became aware of the direct connection between cults and my program about 10 years ago, it honestly has taken a long time for that part to settle in. I spent the last 20 years thinking that I was held captive by uneducated, unethical people, who were haphazardly trying to instill good values and valid psychological principles/theories. It turns out, it was all a grift!!! I spent 20 years reading Carl Jung, when I should have ALSO been reading Robert Jay Lifton.

In this second chapter I'm done being in the closet about my TTI experiences, and I'm done giving those adults-in-charge the benefit of the doubt. I look forward to learning more about "organizational psychology", cults, and coercive control this time around.

TikTok @ex.patient.adelle IG @ex.patient.adelle Reddit @ex-patient-adelle

DESCRIPTION OF THE VIDEO ABOVE: After going into a little background, this video demonstrates how even the most boring, garden variety exchange in a "Feedback Group" at my school, contributes to a compression of harm and stress for survivors. I hope my video provides a thoughtful criticism on the Troubled Teen Industry, and schools considered to be "one of the good ones."

Please note, I made an error in my statement that SRA was open for "16 years". It was open for about 27 years (1996-2023). I correct this in the closed captioning, and added a pop-up in the video with this edit.

IMAGE/VIDEO DESCRIPTION: A white woman with a short buzzcut is wearing a grey suit, sitting in front of a cute and childish desk full of Archie comics, a Wicked lego set, a pink puppy stuffed-animal, candles, a fireplace youtube video playing on a laptop, books and makeup. Her essay is typed on purple printer paper, which she is holding.

Kind regards, Your friend,

Adelle

[mbti-notes]

Anon wrote: ISFP, asexual, beginning a 5-year PhD in a a conservative state. I’ve noticed grad students in the program like to bond over dating/guys (the cohort is mostly women in their 20s). Although my love life is technically none of their business, at every place I’ve worked, people have asked if I’m seeing anyone, what my taste is guys is, etc. I usually “play along” with assumptions that I’m straight and give the sort of answers people seemed to be looking for. But 5 years seems like a long time to fake such a fundamental part of myself. I think I’ll end up having to go against the grain one way or another.

Many people don’t know about asexuality, so not only would I risk people’s prejudice, at minimum I’d probably have to play “educator” about my identity. I’m trying to decide whether to a) clearly communicate that I won’t discuss my dating life with my cohort and then keep enforcing that boundary (which will be hard because I do want to bond with people in the program), b) just say I’m not interested in dating or that I’m “not inclined that way” (although in my experience, that doesn’t deter people from further prying), or c) be honest and open about my identity if anyone asks (but then have to “explain myself” to people)

-----------------------

It is unfair, tough, and taxing to feel as though you have to hide or suppress such an important aspect of yourself. I do find that it helps to think of it as just one aspect of oneself rather than one's entire identity. The fact of the matter is that people don't know every aspect of each other unless they are in a very close and intimate relationship.

The kind of conversations you're referring to are classified as "small talk". People use small talk as a way to subtly feel out if a deeper relationship is possible, which means it doesn't have to be any more serious than discussing the weather. You get to control exactly how near or far you want to be from people by choosing to respond or not respond to their small talk seriously. Perhaps you're taking it more seriously than is necessary because it's a sensitive topic for you?

Option 1: Limit the truth because it's none of their business. If other people want to assume, then it's their problem, not yours. Speaking from my own experience, unless the person is an outright bigot, I often find it extremely funny rather than offensive when they reveal how ignorant they are through their assumptions about me. Once again, you can choose the degree to which you take such things seriously, which is easier to do when you feel secure in your identity.

I don't think you need to be a hard-ass about it, as you won't make many friends that way. Setting a hard and solid boundary out of the blue or without provocation often leads people to think something's "wrong" with you, which isn't ideal.

I think the issue here is what you call "being fake" or "playing along". I don't really see it that way. I think it's quite possible to be private without being inauthentic. When you're a good communicator, it isn't necessary to lie. There are a million ways to say something without saying it directly. Perhaps your thinking on the matter is too black-and-white if you're framing it as "honesty" vs "lying". Socializing successfully requires more nuance than that.

Yes, you could say it's private business, in a friendly way. There's nothing morally wrong with being a shy or private person, is there? Or you could say... Relationships aren't your priority right now... It's not something you care much about... You haven't met anyone you feel that way about... You haven't really thought about it... You care much more about <fill in the blank>...

None of those statements are lies and they are honest enough that a savvy person might even grasp the subtext. For the less savvy, yes, they might ask further questions, but they'll eventually stop once it becomes obvious that you have little to contribute on the matter. And if someone does press too hard, take it as a helpful sign that they should be avoided.

Although, you shouldn't assume that people are "prying" just for asking questions. It might appear to be prying when you're standing in the perspective of having a secret to keep, but, to them, it's merely curiosity. Curiosity is necessary for furthering relationships, otherwise, how would we get to know each other? Maybe you can learn to take people's curiosity in stride? For example, sometimes a bit of humor works better than a hard boundary.

Option 2: Be open because it shouldn't be a big deal. Do you derive pleasure from challenging people's ignorance and prejudice? There is something to be said for standing up, being visible, getting counted, and providing representation as a minority. You could help advance people's awareness and acceptance. However, if you don't want to be a crusader, what's your reason for being open?

You say you're ISFP, so you presumably think it's important to be yourself and freely express who you are? I agree that this is an important value to hold and uphold. Unfortunately, freedom of expression doesn't mean you are free from consequences. Being a person of integrity isn't always easy since upholding your values can bring undesirable consequences. The logical consequence of expressing yourself freely is that your business becomes other people's business if they take an interest in what you're expressing. The question is: Is this a price you're willing to pay, or is it a price you believe is worth paying?

Option 3: Be selective. There is a third option, which is to only come out to the individuals you trust. Perhaps this middle ground would be more comfortable for you? You won't have to "educate" and "explain" to everyone and face public scrutiny. You'll get to express who you are in a way that's satisfying enough. Of course, the tough part is exercising good judgment about who to trust. It's important to remember that there are good/accepting and bad/prejudiced people everywhere, regardless of whether the place is conservative or liberal leaning.

It is entirely your prerogative as to what aspects of yourself to reveal to others. This is why it's not my place to tell you whether to reveal or not. I can only tell you to weigh the options thoroughly and make the decision that you can best live with.

[guzsdaily]

Good Code is Boring

Daily Blogs 358 - Oct 28th, 12.024

Something I started to notice and think about, is how much most good code is kinda boring.

Clever Code

Go (or "Golang" for SEO friendliness) is my third or fourth programming language that I learned, and it is somewhat a new paradigm for me.

My first language was Java, famous for its Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) paradigms and features. I learned it for game development, which is somewhat okay with Java, and to be honest, I hardly remember how it was. However, I learned from others how much OOP can get out of control and be a nightmare with inheritance inside inheritance inside inheritance.

And then I learned JavaScript after some years... fucking god. But being honest, in the start JS was a blast, and I still think it is a good language... for the browser. If you start to go outside from the standard vanilla JavaScript, things start to be clever. In an engineering view, the ecosystem is really powerful, things such as JSX and all the frameworks that use it, the compilers for Vue and Svelte, and the whole bundling, and splitting, and transpiling of Rollup, ESBuild, Vite and using TypeScript, to compile a language to another, that will have a build process, all of this, for an interpreted language... it is a marvel of engineering, but it is just too much.

Finally, I learned Rust... which I kinda like it. I didn't really make a big project with it, just a small CLI for manipulating markdown, which was nice and when I found a good solution for converting Markdown AST to NPF it was a big hit of dopamine because it was really elegant. However, nowadays, I do feel like it is having the same problems of JavaScript. Macros are a good feature, but end up being the go-to solution when you simply can't make the code "look pretty"; or having to use a library to anything a little more complex; or having to deal with lifetimes. And if you want to do anything a little more complex "the Rust way", you will easily do head to head with a wall of skill-issues. I still love it and its complexity, and for things like compiler and transpilers it feels like a good shot.

Going Go

This year I started to learn Go (or "Golang" for SEO friendliness), and it has being kinda awesome.

Go is kinda like Python in its learning curve, and it is somewhat like C but without all the needing of handling memory and needing to create complex data structured from scratch. And I have never really loved it, but never really hated it, since it is mostly just boring and simple.

There are no macros or magic syntax. No pattern matching on types, since you can just use a switch statement. You don't have to worry a lot about packages, since the standard library will cover you up to 80% of features. If you need a package, you don't need to worry about a centralized registry to upload and the security vulnerability of a single failure point, all packages are just Git repositories that you import and that's it. And no file management, since it just uses the file system for packages and imports.

And it feels like Go pretty much made all the obvious decisions that make sense, and you mostly never question or care about them, because they don't annoy you. The syntax doesn't get into your way. And in the end you just end up comparing to other languages' features, saying to yourself "man... we could save some lines here" knowing damn well it's not worth it. It's boring.

You write code, make your feature be completed in some hours, and compile it with go build. And run the binary, and it's fast.

Going Simple

And writing Go kinda opened a new passion in programming for me.

Coming from JavaScript and Rust really made me be costumed with complexity, and going now to Go really is making me value simplicity and having the less moving parts are possible.

I am becoming more aware from installing dependencies, checking to see their dependencies, to be sure that I'm not putting 100 projects under my own. And when I need something more complex but specific, just copy-and-paste it and put the proper license and notice of it, no need to install a whole project. All other necessities I just write my own version, since most of the time it can be simpler, a learning opportunity, and a better solution for your specific problem. With Go I just need go build to build my project, and when I need JavaScript, I just fucking write it and that's it, no TypeScript (JSDoc covers 99% of the use cases for TS), just write JS for the browser, check if what you're using is supported by modern browsers, and serve them as-is.

Doing this is really opening some opportunities to learn how to implement solutions, instead of just using libraries or cumbersome language features to implement it, since I mostly read from source-code of said libraries and implement the concept myself. Not only this, but this is really making me appreciate more standards and tooling, both from languages and from ecosystem (such as web standards), since I can just follow them and have things work easily with the outside world.

The evolution

And I kinda already feel like this is making me a better developer overhaul. I knew that with an interesting experiment I made.

One of my first actual projects was, of course, a to-do app. I wrote it in Vue using Nuxt, and it was great not-gonna-lie, Nuxt and Vue are awesome frameworks and still one of my favorites, but damn well it was overkill for a to-do app. Looking back... more than 30k lines of code for this app is just too much.

And that's what I thought around the start of this year, which is why I made an experiment, creating a to-do app in just one HTML file, using AlpineJS and PicoCSS.

The file ended up having just 350 files.

Today's artists & creative things Music: Torna a casa - by Måneskin

© 2024 Gustavo "Guz" L. de Mello. Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0

[roseliejack123]

Mastering the Basics of Java: Your Gateway to Software Development

In the ever-evolving landscape of programming, Java stands as a versatile and widely-adopted language that has consistently been the preferred choice of developers worldwide. Whether you are a newcomer taking your first steps into the world of programming or an experienced developer seeking to broaden your skillset, acquiring a profound understanding of Java's fundamentals is an essential stride forward. In this comprehensive and meticulously crafted guide, we embark on a journey to delve deep into the core concepts of Java programming. This knowledge will not only serve as a strong foundation but also empower you to navigate the dynamic and ever-evolving domain of software development with confidence.

Java's popularity has endured for decades, and it shows no signs of slowing down. Its ability to adapt to the ever-shifting demands of the software industry, coupled with its cross-platform compatibility, has made it a mainstay for both beginners and seasoned professionals. Whether you aspire to develop web applications, mobile apps, or enterprise-grade software solutions, Java offers a versatile platform to turn your coding dreams into reality.

1. Syntax: The Building Blocks of Java

Java's syntax is often praised for its readability and similarity to other programming languages like C++ and C#. This makes it relatively easy to learn, especially if you have experience with these languages. The key feature of Java's syntax is the use of curly braces {} to define blocks of code. These braces play a fundamental role in structuring Java programs, making it essential to grasp their usage.

2. Objects and Classes: Embracing Object-Oriented Programming (OOP)

Java is an object-oriented programming (OOP) language, which means it revolves around the concepts of objects and classes. In Java, everything is treated as an object, and classes serve as blueprints for creating these objects. A class defines both the properties (fields) and behaviors (methods) of an object. Understanding the principles of OOP is vital for building well-structured and modular Java applications.

3. Data Types: The Foundation of Variables and Data Manipulation

Java supports a variety of data types, categorized into primitive data types (e.g., int, double, char) and reference data types (e.g., objects, arrays). Primitive data types represent basic values, while reference data types refer to objects created from classes. Grasping these data types is essential for declaring variables and manipulating data in your Java programs.

4. Control Flow: Directing the Flow of Your Program

Java provides an array of control flow statements that dictate the execution flow of your program. These include conditional statements (such as if-else and switch), looping statements (including for, while, and do-while), and branching statements (like break, continue, and return). Mastery of these control flow structures is crucial for creating efficient and logic-driven Java applications.

5. Inheritance: Building on Existing Foundations

Inheritance is a core concept in Java that enables you to create new classes based on existing ones. By inheriting the properties and behaviors of a parent class, you can promote code reusability and establish a more organized code structure. Inheritance is a powerful tool for designing extensible and scalable Java applications.

6. Polymorphism: Achieving Flexibility and Extensibility

Polymorphism is another hallmark of Java's object-oriented approach. It enables objects of various classes to be handled as though they were members of a single superclass. This flexibility in code design allows you to create more versatile and extensible applications. Understanding polymorphism is essential for leveraging the full potential of Java's object-oriented capabilities.

7. Exception Handling: Managing Errors Gracefully

Java boasts a robust exception-handling mechanism to deal with runtime errors. By using try-catch blocks, you can gracefully handle exceptions, ensuring that your program doesn't crash unexpectedly. Effective exception handling is a key aspect of writing robust and reliable Java code.

8. Packages and Libraries: Harnessing the Power of Java's Ecosystem

Java offers a vast standard library known as the Java Standard Library or Java API. Additionally, it allows you to organize your code into packages for better organization and modularity. Leveraging these packages and libraries is essential for streamlining your development process and tapping into a wealth of pre-built functionality.

9. Memory Management: The Art of Garbage Collection

Java employs a unique feature called garbage collection to automatically manage memory. This process helps prevent memory leaks and ensures efficient memory usage in your Java applications. Understanding how garbage collection works is crucial for maintaining the performance and stability of your programs.

10. Multithreading: Building Responsive and Scalable Applications

Java's support for multithreading allows you to execute multiple threads concurrently. Threads are smaller units of a process that can run independently, making it possible to build responsive and scalable applications. Mastering multithreading is essential for developing high-performance Java software, particularly in today's world of parallel computing.

Learning Java opens doors to a wide range of career opportunities in software development and information technology. Whether you're interested in building web applications, mobile apps, or enterprise solutions, Java's versatility makes it a valuable skill.

If you're looking to embark on your Java programming journey or enhance your existing skills, consider exploring courses and training programs offered by reputable institutions like ACTE Technologies. They provide comprehensive learning experiences and expert guidance to help you master Java and advance your career in this exciting field.

In conclusion, Java's robust features and wide-ranging applications make it a compelling choice for developers worldwide. By mastering its fundamental concepts and continuously expanding your knowledge, you'll be well-prepared to tackle complex projects and contribute to the ever-evolving world of software development. Good luck with your Java programming efforts!

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Ted Littleford

* * * *

Trump goes full dictator

January 28, 2025

Robert B. Hubbell

Trump has broken faith with the Constitution. He is no longer operating within the pale of the law. On Monday, January 27, Trump dropped all pretense of being a “president” within the meaning of Article II of the US Constitution and began wielding power for his own benefit and without regard for constitutional restrictions.

In two lawless actions on Monday, the acting US Attorney for DC announced an internal investigation into DOJ prosecutors who investigated and indicted January 6 insurrectionists. And the Acting Attorney General fired more than a dozen prosecutors who worked on the investigations and indictments of Donald Trump.

It is clear that Trump has ordered the Department of Justice to seek vengeance against career prosecutors who acted with integrity and professionalism in prosecuting Trump and those who assaulted the Capitol on January 6.

The notion of any president directing the DOJ to make prosecutorial judgments has been unthinkable under post-Watergate legal norms. However, the notion of a president directing prosecutorial decisions of the DOJ to further his own political interest is antithetical to core principles of the Constitution. The president’s swears an oath to “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States”—no part of which involves elevating his personal interests above those of the nation.

In a separate action taken late Monday evening, Trump ordered a freeze on all federal grants and loans (by way of a memo from the acting head of the OMB). See WSJ, White House Orders Pause of Federal Financial Assistance Programs. (Per the WSJ, the order directs all agencies to “temporarily pause all activities related to obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance, and other relevant agency activities that may be implicated by the executive orders, including, but not limited to, financial assistance for foreign aid, nongovernmental organizations, DEI, woke gender ideology, and the green new deal.”)

Trump's order from the OMB violates the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Trump doesn’t care. Neither do congressional Republicans. And the ruse that the pauses are “temporary” does nothing to diminish the fact that impoundments are illegal and unconstitutional.

The impoundment of appropriated funds is a constitutional crisis on a fast track to the Supreme Court. For an excellent discussion, see Steve Vladeck, One First (Substack), The Impoundment Crisis of 2025. (I will return to this topic in later editions of this newsletter, but Vladeck covers the subject in detail.)

While some presidents have secretly used the FBI, IRS, and DOJ to investigate their political foes, no president in the history of our nation has publicly ordered the DOJ to investigate his perceived political enemies, much less fire them.

It is time for the institutions fighting for democracy to drop the niceties and begin calling Trump for what he is: a dictator. Many institutions are still treating Trump as though he is a “normal” president, albeit one subject to making impulsive, ignorant statements. Criticizing his actions is not enough. The story of his first week is not that “Trump has shaken things up,” or that he is “flooding the zone.” It is that Trump has begun to ignore the law at whim.

It is also time for the legal profession to speak out. The members of the bar who are facilitating lawless actions must be subject to public condemnation and formal reproval. The leaders of the bar have a special obligation to speak out. They must serve notice on attorneys everywhere that there will be reputational, professional, and licensing repercussions for taking positions that violate the Constitution or deliberately flout the law. The revolving door at Big Law must be closed to attorneys who enable dictatorial actions antithetical to the Constitution and the rule of law.

Trump is unable to act like a dictator unilaterally. He needs the consent, acquiescence, and apathy of enough people to frustrate the normal operation of constitutional and legal checks and balances.

We must not grant that assistance to Trump. We must resist. We must say in plain language that he is acting like a dictator who holds himself above the law. Whether he gets away with the audacious gambit is up to the people from whom all constitutional power flows. Let’s make our voices heard!

Trump's firing of career prosecutors is illegal.

On Monday, the termination of a dozen federal prosecutors also broke the law—because the long-term staffers were part of the federal civil service. As such, they can only be fired for cause. But the statement from the Acting Attorney General said that they were being fired because the AG “did not trust them to implement the president’s agenda.” See CNN, Toobin: Some Trump DOJ firings may be illegal.

If you watch the CNN link above, one of the CNN commentators (Alyssa Farah Griffin) suggests that the firings “won’t raise a lot of eyebrows among Republicans because he did say he was going to do this.”

To be clear, Trump saying on the campaign trail he was going to do something that is illegal does not make it any less illegal. And Republicans should “raise their eyebrows” when the president acts in an illegal manner. But Alyssa Farah Griffin has apparently left her sense of outrage at the studio door—which is why CNN (a.k.a. Fox Lite) may be the next legacy media outlet to go out of business.

Trump's asserted reason for mass deportations is false

Trump claims that 10 million immigrants must be deported because they are violent criminals who continue to commit crimes while in the US awaiting deportation. Predictably, the sweeps have caught up a significant number of immigrants who have not committed crimes. See NBC News, ICE agents search for those with criminal histories but say 'collateral arrests' are possible.

Per NBC,

However, just 613 of the 1,179 people arrested Sunday — nearly 52% — were considered “criminal arrests,” a senior Trump administration official said. The rest appear to be nonviolent offenders or people who have not committed any criminal offense.

The fact that 48% of those arrested on Sunday did not have criminal records for violence demonstrates the ICE agents are making indiscriminate arrests to play to the television cameras. Indeed, the Trump administration advised ICE agents to make themselves “presentable” to be filmed on television. See CNN, Federal agents in immigration operations told to be camera-ready as hundreds arrested.

As I wrote yesterday, Trump has moved beyond “Cruelty is the point” to “Cruelty is entertainment for Trump's base.”

Trump's mass deportation policies are spreading fear throughout immigrant communities—including those gathering in places of worship. A group of Quaker affiliated plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration for allowing raids to take place in sensitive places, including “houses of worship.” See MSN, Quakers challenge Trump order allowing immigration raids at religious sites.

Trump signs order clearing path to banning transgender people in the military

As expected, Trump has signed an order requiring the Pentagon to explain why transgender people advance the military’s stated objective of being “ready for deployment” in thirty days. See CBS News, Trump signs executive orders on military DEI, trans service members, COVID.

Per the CBS article,

The president also signed an executive order directing the Pentagon to determine a policy for transgender service members based on readiness within 30 days. The action does not immediately ban transgender service members, however, it does state that the Defense Department's policy for troop readiness is "inconsistent with the medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on individuals with gender dysphoria."

The executive order is a ruse designed to give the Pentagon a reason to reverse its current policy of allowing transgender people to serve in the military. One estimate places the number of transgender people in the military at 15,000.

The policy is not only depraved, but it will also weaken the military’s preparedness. The US military has been in a recruiting crisis for years because most recruits fail to meet the physical or educational standards required for enlistment. Per Military.com,

[T]he Army's struggles have mostly been attributed to young Americans not qualifying for service, either failing to meet body fat or academic standards.

To meet the recruiting crisis, the Army has instituted “preparedness boot camps” that work with recruits to get them into physical shape and to help them pass the Army’s SAT-style entrance exam. Again, per Military.com,

The idea is to meet young Americans where they are, getting them into shape or providing them critical tutoring for the SAT-style entrance exam as test scores in schools have been falling for years, particularly for boys.

Against the recruiting crisis backdrop, forcing transgender people out of the military who have already met the military’s physical and educational requirements is just plain stupid—in addition to being illegal and morally wrong.

And then there is the hypocrisy. The executive order asserted that being a transgender person is inherently at odds with “a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life.” See Erin in the Morning (Substack), Trump Military Ban Says Being Trans Conflicts With "Honorable, Truthful, Disciplined Lifestyle".

As noted by Erin in the Morning, the impending transgender ban will be implemented by Pete Hegseth, who has a demonstrated history of sexual assault, serial infidelity, alcohol abuse, misogyny, and Islamophobia. And let’s not forget about the Commander-in-Chief, who paid off a porn star with whom he had a sexual encounter while the current First Lady was at home with the infant Trump, and who lost a civil defamation case in which the jury found Trump had sexually abused E. Jean Carroll.

List of companies rolling back DEI initiatives

Axios has published a list of companies that have rolled back DEI initiatives. Axios also identifies companies that have recently re-affirmed their commitment to diversity and inclusion. See Axios, Which companies are rolling back DEI and which are standing firm

The companies that took the first opportunity to ditch their commitment to diversity and inclusiveness in the workplace include the following:

Amazon

Boeing

Caterpillar

Ford

Harley-Davidson

John Deere

Lowe’s

Coors

McDonald’s

Meta

Nissan

Stanley Black & Decker

Target

Tractor Supply

Toyota

Walmart

Companies that have publicly defended the existing commitment to DEI include:

American Airlines

Southwest Airlines

United Airlines

Delta Airlines

Apple

Cisco

Costco

Salesforce

Now you know. While it is impossible to boycott all of the companies that have turned their backs on DEI, strategic communications can make a difference. And don’t forget to thank the companies that are honoring diversity and inclusion in the workplace.

Concluding Thoughts

Trump's order freezing all federal grants and loans raises an existential question for our constitutional republic. Under Trump's theory of the case, Congress appropriates funds, and then Trump can spend the money however he pleases without regard to the painstaking budgeting process undertaken by Congress.

In the enumeration of congressional powers in Article I, the Constitution states:

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law

The Constitution thus grants Congress the power to appropriate money. Trump wants to arrogate that power unto himself by declaring that he can withhold money appropriated by Congress and—this is implied—use that money for some other purpose.

If the Supreme Court were to accept Trump's theory, it would amount to a wholesale restructuring of the Constitution and of our republic.

Here’s my point: Trump's claim that he has the power to override congressional appropriations is like his claim that he can abolish birthright citizenship: It is specious, risible, ridiculous, fatuous, and ignorant. If the Supreme Court were to uphold Trump's claim, the Court would effectively guarantee that it would be neutered at the first opportunity—either by enlargement, term limits, or limitation of its appellate jurisdiction.

For the second time in a week, Trump has overreached so badly that he has essentially ensured that he will lose in the Supreme Court. So, as we endure the chaos that will be created by his nearly incomprehensible order, we should be confident that Trump has gone too far, even for this compromised, corrupt, ethically challenged Supreme Court.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

"REBUILD SLUMS ON CITY LANDS BOARD IS URGED," Toronto Star. January 17, 1934. Page 1 & 2. --- New Housing Plans for Toronto Submitted by Large Delegation ---- WOULD MAKE WORK ---- Speaker Claims 15,000 Families Have "Doubled Up" Since Depression ---- "Something must be done and only public bodies can restore the credit curtailed by banks if we are ever to put our men back to work," James Craig, past president of the Ontario Association of Architects, told board of control to-day. He headed a large delegation from architects, building trades, and women's organizations to lay before the board a new housing plan for Toronto.

Asking for $2,500,000 in civic aid to finance the building, Mr. Craig said the plan would pay $2,000,000 in wages, provide cheap housing for 750 families and convert a dead asset in civic lands into a live one.

The expenditure of each $833,000 would have a return value to the city of $1,666,000, he said.

The city was still under-built, he maintained, pointing out that 15,000 families had doubled up here since the depression began. He did not refer to apartment houses.

"There are many slums in Toronto," he said, citing Hon. H. Н. Stevens' challenge to rebuild slum areas.

"Look in behind the city hall and you will find a rabbit warren. Look even in your areas," he urged. "I challenge the right of any landlord to exact rent."

Con. McBride wanted to know what he meant by Mr. Stevens, the minister of trade and commerce.

"Are you questioning Mr. Stevens' statement?" asked Con. Simpson, smiling.

"You just mind your own business, Mr. Simpson?" retorted Con. McBride.

"The construction industry in Toronto is coming very close to the ragged edge," Mr. Craig pointed out. "Since 1929, it has dropped 86 1-2 per cent. When we contrast it with industries protected from 20 to 40 per cent., we realize the members of the building industry are truly the rugged individualists in this country."

Example From England Mr. Craig reminded the board of a recent statement by the ministèr of finance that public works should be restricted in periods of prosperity and encouraged by public bodies during depression.

"That is just exactly what this board has been doing for the past four years," interjected Con. McBride.

Mr. Craig said that in England 2,622,000 houses have been built, at the rate of 147,300 a year, subsidized by the state and local governments.

Mayor Stewart: "I believe in public ownership, but there is a limit. Do you think it is good business for us to take the taxpayers' money and compete with men who make a living from it?"

Mr. Craig: "In, principle I agree, but we have carefully picked building sites in are areas in which there is no speculative building to-day."

Con. McBride: "Do you suggest the city can build more cheaply than the speculative builder?"

Mr. Craig: "In that it can borrow money more cheaply."

Con. McBride reminded him that the city had gone into two previous building programs and was still paying deficits.

Were Not Successful "My view is this should not be a dividend paying proposition," stated Mr. Craig. "It should be a liquidating project."

"As an investor you would judge me by my past performances," Mayor Stewart said, pointing out ventures of this nature undertaken by the city in the past have not proved successful.

The proposals presented were referred to civic officials for a report. Might Involve $2,500,000

The plan submitted by the delegation was that city council vote funds not to exceed $2,500,000 to construct housing for 750 families on 9.983 feet frontage of city-owned vacant property now valued at $554,257. The money was to be raised:

(a) partially by grant and partially by borrowing from the Dominion and provincial governments;

(b) borrowing from the Dominion government under the relief construction program;

(c) borrowing through an issue of debentures, with or without a federal guarantee.

The plan sought the retention of three additional architects by the civic architect's department to look after the general administration of the project and allocate the work among local architects. It also sought repeal of by-law 4547, which demands that all civic building plans be drawn by the architect's department.

There are hundreds of families housed in congested downtown areas, in buildings unfit for human habitation," the brief read. "These properties cannot be condemned because no better accommodation is available in central locations at low cost. Private enterprise has failed to provide decent living accommodation for the $1,000-a-year man with- in easy distance of his place of employment. Proper housing at low rentals, is a social and civic obligation, recognized in England, United States and all through Europe."

[usafphantom2]

China sends 103 military planes towards Taiwan in a new peak of activity that the island calls harassment

Fernando Valduga By Fernando Valduga 09/20/2023 - 10:44am in Military, War Zones

The Chinese military sent 103 warplane towards Taiwan in a 24-hour period, in what the island's Ministry of Defense classified as a new recent high.

The planes were detected between 6 a.m. on Sunday and 6 a.m. on Monday, the ministry said. As usual, they came back before arriving in Taiwan. Chinese warplanes fly towards the autonomous island almost daily, but usually in smaller numbers. The Taiwanese ministry did not explain what period it referred to as a "recent" high.

China, which claims Taiwan as part of its territory, has been conducting increasing military exercises in the air and waters around Taiwan, as tensions increase between the two and with the United States. The U.S. is Taiwan's main arms supplier and opposes any attempt to change Taiwan's status by force.

The Chinese government would prefer Taiwan to be under its control voluntarily and last week revealed a plan for an integrated development demonstration zone in Fujian province, trying to attract Taiwanese while militarily threatening the island, in what experts say is China's long-standing baton and carrot approach.

Recent actions may be an attempt to influence Taiwan's presidential elections in January. The ruling Progressive Democratic Party, which leans towards the formal independence of the island, is an anathema for the Chinese leadership. China favors opposition candidates who defend work with the continent.

The presidential candidates made no immediate comments on Monday about the latest Chinese military activity.

The Taiwanese Ministry of Defense said that 40 of the planes crossed the symbolic midline between mainland China and the island. They included more than 30 fighters, as well as in-flight refueling tanker planes. Taiwan also reported nine Chinese ships in the region's waters in the previous 24 hours.

The ministry called the Chinese military action "harassment", which warned that it could increase in the current tense atmosphere. “We ask the Beijing authorities to take responsibility and immediately stop this type of destructive military activities,” he said in a statement.

China's Foreign Ministry spokesman Mao Ning, asked about the alleged military activity, said that there is no "median line" because Taiwan is part of Chinese territory.

Last week, China sent a flotilla of ships, including the aircraft carrier Shandong, to waters near Taiwan. The exercises took place shortly after the U.S. and Canada sailed with warships through the Taiwan Strait, the waters that separate the island from the mainland.

Taiwan and China separated in 1949, when the communists took control of China during a civil war. The losing nationalists fled to Taiwan and established their own government on the island.

Only a few foreign nations give the island official diplomatic recognition. The US, among others, has formal ties with China, while maintaining a representative office in Taiwan.

Source: AP

Tags: Military AviationPLAAF - China Air ForceRoCAF - Republic of China Air Force/Waiwan Air ForceWar Zones - China/Taiwan

Sharing

tweet

Fernando Valduga

Fernando Valduga

Aviation photographer and pilot since 1992, he has participated in several events and air operations, such as Cruzex, AirVenture, Daytona Airshow and FIDAE. He has work published in specialized aviation magazines in Brazil and abroad. Uses Canon equipment during his photographic work throughout the world of aviation.

Related news

MILITARY

Northrop Grumman releases update on the program and progress of the B-21 Raider

09/19/2023 - 18:00

MILITARY

Philippine Air Force introduces Cessna C-208B surveillance aircraft donated by the U.S.

19/09/2023 - 14:00

HELICOPTERS

IMAGES: Bell presents the Czech AH-1Z and UH-1Y combat helicopters

19/09/2023 - 12:00

MILITARY

Paramount declares first Mwari operational and reveals additional sales for two operators

19/09/2023 - 09:00

MILITARY

Australia will upgrade the P-8A Poseidon fleet and acquire the fourth MQ-4C Triton

19/09/2023 - 08:14

AIRCRAFT ACCIDENTS

Wreckage of the U.S. Marine Corps F-35B jet is found in South Carolina

18/09/2023 - 23:26