That's the problem with how the app store presents privacy info: without context it's nearly meaningless. "may be collected". It's optional, but that's not show here. The Play store does show that these are all optional.

"Collected" is also a scary word here. Having my location "collected" sounds scary, but what it actually may mean is that I can optionally and explicitly share my location with a contact.

in the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem.

Whether it's a good thing or not depends entirely on your philosophical views. There is no objectively correct answer, and which arguments may convince someone very much depends on the values and perspectives of the person you are trying to convince.

It seems like a quite pointless discussion since you both seem to have already decided your minds.

They don't accept your sources? Why? If they really are valid and they just cherry-pick sources, then there is no way of convincing them.

On the other hand, you also just seem to dismiss their counterarguments without much thought. If they can give a counterargument for your every argument, then maybe your arguments actually aren't good?

Being in the government often leads to reduced popularity.

Consider the options:

1. No early election. RN popularity continues to rise, and they take the presidency and parliament in 2027. Result: Complete power for 5 years.
2. Early election. RN wins, and forms a new government. While being the ruling party, they lose in popularity and lose the elections in 2027. Result: limited power for 3 years.

To me it seems quite clear that option 2 is preferable to 1 for Macron.

How is that the implication when there are lots of other explanations, one even given above?

If the target costs more than the missile (including the opportunity cost), and/or the target is a high priority for repairs, it makes sense to target it. It doesn't need to be more complicated than that.

You forget a piece: "Given these observations, these objectives, and this bit of sound reasoning, ..."

Without objectives, no amount of reasoning will tell you what to do. Who sets the objectives?

Wouldn't static type checking solve most of these issues?

Good question.

The light output would be the same because there is still only one light source. But as you note, some of the "light" would be absorbed by the wall, so the room would be brighter if you had a mirror. Not twice as bright though, because the wall also "reflects" light, otherwise you would not see the wall.

So, would it make sense to have mirror walls to maximize room brightness? Maybe not, because what the walls end up doing is actually scattering the light, meaning light is spread out evenly, wheras with the mirrors you would have some bright areas (corresponding to the lamp) and some darker areas.

Why host it locally in that case, and why host it on a Pi? Seems rather restrictive for that usecase.

You would think so, but int* a, b is actually eqivalent to int* a; int b, so the asterisk actually does go with the name. Writing int* a, *b is inconsistent, so int *a, *b is the way to go.

I feel like the expectation that a developer can do it all is quite harmful. There are not many other disciplines where this is expected, and for good reason.

Maybe it's better to just admit you don't know how to properly architect a solution rather than pretend you do and create an unmaintainable mess. Maybe you shouldn't pretend you know how to do front-end development instead of creating some monstrosity that no user actually uses due to bad UX. Maybe you shouldn't pretend you understand security instead of introducing half a dozen sql injection vectors.

Maybe it's time to admit that the days of the solo developer are over. It may have worked when there was no internet, no security concerns, no concurrency requirements, etc. But we expect, and deserve, better nowadays.