If you had a book which had on its Contents page:

Chapter 1 . . . . . . . . . . page 1

and you crossed it out, then wrote:

Chapter 1 . . . . . . . . . . page 1

Chapter 2 . . . . . . . . . . page 50

someone looking for Chapter 1 is still going to find all the text in the right place (as long as it was less than 50 pages).

Changing the partitition table is like changing the Contents page; it doesn't mess with the rest of the data. And if the new table points to the same place it did before, the data can still be found.

That said, if the filesystem still thinks it's 1TB, you may end up with future problems unless you resize it to fit the reduced partition.

If it ain't broke…

You have regular backups already. Unless you want to add fault tolerance with something like RAID, I don't see why you need to buy anything right now.

I think the assumption is not that adblockers alter the user agent info, but that they also block other resources, so StatCounter won't see those users at all, leading to under-reporting.

Which sampling bias do you think will be ignored by the RETVRN types?

• Worse movies are less likely to survive and be distributed.
• Only 'classics' will overcome a preference for watching newer movies.

Who doesn't love a parade?

What fraction of lurkers do you think are won over by 'Nuh-uh, it's not technically genocide'? Not many, I'd bet.

I'm well aware of the performative aspects of online discussion. It is exactly that performance that I'm criticizing. As I said before, rules-lawyering genocide is not a good look. And giving the opponent an easy out allows them to steal the show.

420blazeit69 has provided a better lead-in:—

Genocide is a crime, and to prove a crime occurred you have to come up with evidence.

which might then be followed by the reminder that a motivated US State department wasn't able to do that—not even with all the efforts of a Nazi apologist. With additional detail, that would be somewhat more persuasive than simply "[throwing it out and seeing how they respond]". It at least returns the burden of justification, although I still think there are better spectator sports to play.

Rod 'em

Thanks. I looked up the artist to help narrow things down and found houses in Denver that are similar. The exported image of two-storey suburban housing always seems to have bigger, busier rooflines.

I don't see them in the app, so not yet, I guess.

We don't allow slave labor like communism does.

You might want to recheck that constitution.

Oh, no, what am I saying? You don't want to do that, because that would once more point out that you're clueless in your assertions. Now I don't want to read any more of them. And I'm free to turn you down, right?

Ah, Enhanced, the folks that brought us interrogation.

2. The ordering of each row should not matter.

This is true for your abstracted rows, but is maintaining eight sets of three square states, two or three of which must be updated with every move, really a better model than a single sequence of nine, where only one needs to change at a time? It's more complex to think about, and is less efficient to update. When you throw in steps to canonicalize the rotation and reflection, which may produce different transformations from the input/output grid on the first three moves, you may need to change even more set items with each move.

It's true that, mathematically, the mapping from grid to sequence is arbitrary and the only thing that matters is consistency, but if you view programming languages as a way to communicate with humans, then clarity of purpose, rather than mathematical idealism, should be your goal. Use a nine-item array or a three-by-three nested array for the underlying storage and treat your eight win-checking sets as views into that more ordered structure. These views could well be functions that return a set and are themselves held in a set to be applied in any order. Similarly, treat canonicalization as another way to view the underlying board.

You could sidestep the mutable borrowing by not mutating individual squares. Take a leaf from the functional-programming books and use a function that takes a board and a move and returns an entirely new board. Or takes a board and returns one of the abstracted row sets. There are only nine squares and nine moves. The win-checking views aren't needed before move six. A bit of copying isn't going be a problem.