I consider myself 90th percentile (in that I think I'm better than at least the bottom 10%).:) I might or might be what you consider "top talent," but for whatever it's worth, I prefer dynamic typing when it's appropriate, and static typing when it's appropriate. A lot of times, that's dictated by a choice of tools or technologies made by others. Much of my work is done in C# which is statically typed by default but supports dynamic types as well, which I use only rarely, but like to have available when needed. But I also love Python, and can tolerate JavaScript when and if necessary.:) Proper automated testing can often mitigate the lack of compile-time checks inherent in dynamically typed languages, and the use (abuse?) of things like Object and generics can often mitigate the lack of full support for dynamic types in many otherwise strongly-typed languages. Normally, what can be done in one can be done in the other, but it always makes sense to have multiple tools at one's disposal and to try to choose whatever seems like the right one for any given job.
No. Their concert, their right to make whatever rules they wish. No one is forcing anyone to attend. My point is that I *cannot* attend if that is the policy they choose to make, and that is likely the case for many, many other people as well. Better approach IMO: ask customers to agree to emergency use only, and deal with offenders on a case by case basis.
I'm on call 24/7/365.25, and have 4 small children who by the nature of childhood are prone to accidents and other crises. Anyplace I cannot answer a phone on the first ring is someplace I cannot and do not wish to be.
I can find almost any movie I want to watch on Youtube, even though I may have to pay a few dollars for it. I'm not aware of any other competitor for which that is the case, although I'm sure mileage may vary depending on one's preferences.
It's also a good way to spot fake "financial advisers." No real FA will risk his or her license by promising future returns, at least without such carefully chosen weasel words that FINRA and similar agencies will allow.
While most of your statement is self-refuting, I will concede that, human nature being what it is, even a more right-leaning state, if one existed, would likely abuse its power as well, only for different reasons. Power is an inherently dangerous thing, regardless of ideology, and is therefore strictly limited and dispersed in every way possible by any functioning society almost by definition.
Pinochet was the closest we had in recent memory to a true anti-communist (read: less-left wing, not right). He was not wrong to fight communism by any just means necessary. He was wrong, however, to "disappear" and to kill innocent people without trial. Violence should be the last resort, never the first.
Yet, few other nations ever put down communism without at least similar levels of violence.
I don't think ours will be an exception, although I hope I'm wrong.
Or simply pre-stage them amongst the tens of millions of shipping containers which arrive here each year, only a tiny fraction of which are ever inspected. You'd have to do some work to evade the radiation scanners, but nothing I imagine a determined enemy or potential enemy wouldn't be able to do. That is how I suspect the U.S. ends. Every major U.S. city probably has dozens of Chinese nukes (among others) already ready to go as soon as someone gives the order; no ballistic missiles or bombers needed. And I suspect the same is true everplace else. It's demonstrably easy, safe, and cheap to pull off, so why not?? Everyone always thinks in terms of the last war, but the next one is never as pretty, nor as predictable.
No. Fascism is another form of leftism, and vile for primarily that reason. There is no right wing in the world today, and when people talk about it as if there were, that is how I know that they have no idea what they are talking about. Hint: if there were, it would look a lot more like the Bill of Rights, and a lot less like the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto.
I hate none of my neighbors, but I do hate the leftism/socialism/fascism/communism to which very nearly all of them subscribe, both Democrats and to a lesser but still significant degree Republicans. I would be fine with them trying to rule themselves, if they would just leave me and other people who value freedom and rule of law out of it. But they can't. They need our production so we can subsidize the various welfare systems (both left-wing and further-left-wing) by which they buy enough votes to rule over all of us, including the small but productive minority who want no part of it, but have no real voice anymore, presuming they ever did. I do not believe that secession is the answer. Nor violence. But I do believe things need to change, and that they will, because the lies of the left (including the Republican left) are not sustainable, the governments that result are not sustainable, the "societies" that result are not sustainable, and it will take far less than most people realize for it to implode under its own fetid, stinking weight. The USSR did, and it was a much less hateful, violent, and divided society than our own.
I have no problem sending properly encrypted data to the cloud, and I've had isolated incidents in past workplaces where employees and contractors stole information that was local. In general, cloud storage does pose security challenges, but not insurmountable ones. People who do not understand those challenges, and people who take advantage of them, are the bigger issues IMO.
To generalize, but only slightly, we older folk have world views that are both based on, and consistent with, actual experience. We are generally willing to change them given sufficient evidence, but quite reluctant otherwise. And keep in mind that the blatherings of politicians and celebrities and so-called "scientists" or "experts" who don't do actual, evidence-based science, or are on the payroll of those with vested interests in said blatherings, do not constitute "evidence." We tend to remember the Cold War, the "global ice age," innumerable false flag ops, and various other mass delusions, which makes us much more skeptical about the current ones than younger folk, not because they are stupid necessarily, but because they just haven't been around long enough yet to understand that most folks have an agenda, which needs to be taken into account when trying to assess their credibility or lack thereof.
My opinion, colored by the fact that I live in a place with a very low cost of living compared to most of the U.S. (Cleveland, Ohio area):
Lower-class means you really have nowhere near enough resources to guarantee the survival of yourself and your children. Typically you live either in a very violent inner-city area with barely half of the average life expectancy because of crime and drug abuse, or in a very rural area without access to jobs or opportunities of any kind. It is not considered a pejorative. I spent about half my life in this class.
Middle-class means you have the basic essentials of life, you probably have a decent job, and could probably survive a month or so of unemployment. You probably have both some savings, though not necessarily enough, and also long-term debt. You may vacation from time to time. You can afford some luxuries although they must be carefully planned and budgeted. It is possible for a middle-class person to drown under the weight of mortgage, student-loan or medical debt. "Lower-middle-class" are those who are more likely than not to do so at some point in their adult lives; "upper-middle-class" people fairly unlikely to do so, although many people move fluidly among these classes and subclasses. Traditionally this was the largest class in the U.S., and arguably still is, although economic changes have thinned it out considerably. I consider myself lower-middle-class at present; I have a better than average income, but spend way too much and save way too little, because of the demands of my family. It is my ambition to pay off debts and then to save more, which would make me arguably upper-middle-class, but I've never been quite there yet and am not sure I ever will.
Upper-class means you will not likely ever need to worry about the mere essentials of life, and you don't. You can probably afford anything you are ever likely to need or want, although probably not everything. You probably live in much more expensive and safe neighborhoods than most others, and are much more likely to live and work in or near NYC, LA, Chicago, or other very large cities. You may have personal assistants such as maids or drivers, although even among the wealthiest Americans this is much less common than in other parts of the world. You can and most likely do travel anyplace in the world anytime you wish, and probably need to because of your well-paying but probably very demanding job. You likely inherited at least some portion of your wealth, but enough social and economic mobility still exists in the U.S. as to have produced many self-made millionaires. I have known and worked with many people in this category, but have never been close to it myself.
These are not rigid, unchangeable categories, but fairly fluid ones. Very wealthy people become very poor all the time, although they rarely stay that way unless it was due to very bad life choices such as becoming addicted to opiates, a scourge that affects every class, though not necessarily equally. Poor people also become wealthier all the time, and typically do not slide back into extreme poverty except for those same reasons (poor life choices, often, as in my case, taking on excessive debt). But many people, myself included, do not aggressively pursue a state of great wealth. I would be content if my debts were paid off and we had both modest savings and the ability to give more to help the less fortunate.
On the other hand, there are mechanisms which, intentionally or otherwise, work to lessen class mobility. One is that government schools, which most people use, are funded largely through taxes, and vary dramatically in quality, with the crappier ones typically found in poorer places and the better ones in wealthier areas. Another is that American neighborhoods, while no longer rigidly segregated by race, *are* rigidly segregated by income. Poor people tend to know mainly poor people; wealthy people mainly wealthy ones. Cultural, moral, and ethical values tend to vary based on class. Family
" everyone can write software for Windows, and that software will run on every Windows OS. "
Respectfully but strongly disagree.
That used to be true to a large degree. It isn't anymore. Microsoft is trying to drag developers to the UWP, by, among other means, not allowing anything else into the Windows Store. But UWP apps will not run on previous versions of Windows. Meanwhile, although it's very possible to write apps using older technologies like WPF, Winforms and even (gag) VB6, and have them run on most current and recent versions of Windows, none of those technologies is well supported anymore, most do not work well (if at all) on mobile devices and particularly on non-x86 devices, and Microsoft makes no promises to support them indefinitely.
If you want to make apps that will work across as many extant versions of Windows as possible, IMO your best bet is usually for the UI layer to be Web-based, even if they run purely locally. And that has been the case, again IMO, for many years. I've recommended this since the days of IE4, even though, back then, cross-browser compatibility was really tough. Today, unless you need tight integration with hardware, there is typically no reason for either the server or the UI layers to be Microsoft-specific. So, in exchange for the work you must do anyway if you wish to support multiple versions of Windows, you are most of the way toward being genuinely cross-platform already. UWP is more work, for less benefit, and it throws users of older Windows versions right under a very large bus. Unless you *must* support Windows Store, I just don't see any value added.
That's because it isn't a problem with Linux. It is a problem with the package manager, if it is a problem at all, and a very fixable one in almost every case. BTW, my preferred solution to that problem is Gentoo also, but many other solutions exist. Once in a while Gentoo ebuilds don't get properly slotted and then we have the problem here as well, but, again, I've managed to figure out workarounds if not solutions in every case to date, with the singular exception of Gnome, which I only rarely used and now choose not to use mainly for that reason.
At one point I did have exactly the problem addressed in the article; I followed the steps therein, and the problem went away, and hasn't recurred since. I won't pretend I've never had issues with Gentoo; I have, although probably 80% turned out to have been self-inflicted. Nonetheless I find that it has bought me valuable time to not have to deal with all the systemd nonsense so long as I don't try to run Gnome, which I wouldn't anyway (I prefer XFCE). I've no doubt that sooner or later I will be forced to deal with it, but given those two choices, I prefer later rather than sooner, since, by that time, hopefully, some of the initial problems will be cleaned up or at least worked around. I didn't like pulseaudio at first either, and still don't, but I have to grudgingly admit that at some point it did become at least marginally usable, probably not because of LP's well-known aversion to clean architecture and design, but because people who used it helped to clean it up.
Respectfully disagree that legacy infrastructure is necessarily an impediment to the uptake of a "C replacement." As the article noted, any potential "C replacement" will have to interoperate seamlessly with C for a very, very long time. To the extent that C toolchains will be able to interoperate with "replacement C" toolchains and vice versa. This is a high bar, and just one of many, but it is one that Go, Rust, maybe Cx (whatever that is - hadn't even heard of it previously), may one day prove to overcome.
Problem in the former is connecting distant and/or congested points within that area together. NYC at least has the subways and trains. Greater LA is more spread out, has lower population density, has much less intracity/commuter rail than it needs, and may very easily require a several hour trip just to reach the terminal. This diminishes the value of fast intracity travel. You rarely go from terminal to terminal. You go from probably an hour or so away, if you're lucky, to the terminal, then to the other, then from that terminal to your destination, and then back again. The faster you can make the trip between terminals, the more the limiting factor becomes travel to and from them within the two respective metro areas. That in my mind is why the most promising candidates for something like Hyperloop, if/when it ever becomes a real thing, would be between cities that are either (a) relatively uncongested, and/or (b) well-served by existing public transportation networks. IMO, SFO qualifies, though just barely and only because of BART; LA, not so much. Not yet anyway.
East *anyplace* seems in my experience to be questionably safe at best. East Cleveland. East St. Louis. East New York. East L.A. I wonder why that is. (N.B.: I was born in East Cleveland, but a long time ago, well before it reached its current levels of poverty, corruption, and lawlessness.)
Would love to hear Bach-esque completions of works such as the apparently unfinished 1st movement of the Pastorale (BWV 590). I have one in my head that I've never managed to write down, but it is really just regurgitated elements from the piece itself. I know Bach idioms well, having listened multiple times through his completed works (and dozens to hundreds through the organ and keyboard works since I'm an amateur organist). But part of his genius is that he rarely does the formulaic thing one might expect. I don't come close to being able to replicate that.
The Swastika is not a symbol of the Third Reich. It is an ancient Indian symbol that was co-opted by the Third Reich. "Reichturds" demonstrate their ignorance, just as the Nazis did, by claiming it as their own.
Slashdot Mirror
Which, strangely, doesn't seem to be helping with their birth rate problem.
I consider myself 90th percentile (in that I think I'm better than at least the bottom 10%). :) I might or might be what you consider "top talent," but for whatever it's worth, I prefer dynamic typing when it's appropriate, and static typing when it's appropriate. A lot of times, that's dictated by a choice of tools or technologies made by others. Much of my work is done in C# which is statically typed by default but supports dynamic types as well, which I use only rarely, but like to have available when needed. But I also love Python, and can tolerate JavaScript when and if necessary. :) Proper automated testing can often mitigate the lack of compile-time checks inherent in dynamically typed languages, and the use (abuse?) of things like Object and generics can often mitigate the lack of full support for dynamic types in many otherwise strongly-typed languages. Normally, what can be done in one can be done in the other, but it always makes sense to have multiple tools at one's disposal and to try to choose whatever seems like the right one for any given job.
Or life post-attempt. Every single person with dirt on the Clintons seems to die horribly before it can be exposed.
No. Their concert, their right to make whatever rules they wish. No one is forcing anyone to attend. My point is that I *cannot* attend if that is the policy they choose to make, and that is likely the case for many, many other people as well. Better approach IMO: ask customers to agree to emergency use only, and deal with offenders on a case by case basis.
I'm on call 24/7/365.25, and have 4 small children who by the nature of childhood are prone to accidents and other crises. Anyplace I cannot answer a phone on the first ring is someplace I cannot and do not wish to be.
I can find almost any movie I want to watch on Youtube, even though I may have to pay a few dollars for it. I'm not aware of any other competitor for which that is the case, although I'm sure mileage may vary depending on one's preferences.
It's also a good way to spot fake "financial advisers." No real FA will risk his or her license by promising future returns, at least without such carefully chosen weasel words that FINRA and similar agencies will allow.
While most of your statement is self-refuting, I will concede that, human nature being what it is, even a more right-leaning state, if one existed, would likely abuse its power as well, only for different reasons. Power is an inherently dangerous thing, regardless of ideology, and is therefore strictly limited and dispersed in every way possible by any functioning society almost by definition.
Pinochet was the closest we had in recent memory to a true anti-communist (read: less-left wing, not right). He was not wrong to fight communism by any just means necessary. He was wrong, however, to "disappear" and to kill innocent people without trial. Violence should be the last resort, never the first.
Yet, few other nations ever put down communism without at least similar levels of violence.
I don't think ours will be an exception, although I hope I'm wrong.
Or simply pre-stage them amongst the tens of millions of shipping containers which arrive here each year, only a tiny fraction of which are ever inspected. You'd have to do some work to evade the radiation scanners, but nothing I imagine a determined enemy or potential enemy wouldn't be able to do. That is how I suspect the U.S. ends. Every major U.S. city probably has dozens of Chinese nukes (among others) already ready to go as soon as someone gives the order; no ballistic missiles or bombers needed. And I suspect the same is true everplace else. It's demonstrably easy, safe, and cheap to pull off, so why not?? Everyone always thinks in terms of the last war, but the next one is never as pretty, nor as predictable.
A telco installation is stationary, is it not? Why not just hire a few cats, preferably with severe anger issues and a history of violent behavior??
No. Fascism is another form of leftism, and vile for primarily that reason. There is no right wing in the world today, and when people talk about it as if there were, that is how I know that they have no idea what they are talking about. Hint: if there were, it would look a lot more like the Bill of Rights, and a lot less like the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto.
I hate none of my neighbors, but I do hate the leftism/socialism/fascism/communism to which very nearly all of them subscribe, both Democrats and to a lesser but still significant degree Republicans. I would be fine with them trying to rule themselves, if they would just leave me and other people who value freedom and rule of law out of it. But they can't. They need our production so we can subsidize the various welfare systems (both left-wing and further-left-wing) by which they buy enough votes to rule over all of us, including the small but productive minority who want no part of it, but have no real voice anymore, presuming they ever did. I do not believe that secession is the answer. Nor violence. But I do believe things need to change, and that they will, because the lies of the left (including the Republican left) are not sustainable, the governments that result are not sustainable, the "societies" that result are not sustainable, and it will take far less than most people realize for it to implode under its own fetid, stinking weight. The USSR did, and it was a much less hateful, violent, and divided society than our own.
You fail to understand that this is NOT a democracy and that many of us would die, or kill, to prevent it from ever becoming one.
I have no problem sending properly encrypted data to the cloud, and I've had isolated incidents in past workplaces where employees and contractors stole information that was local. In general, cloud storage does pose security challenges, but not insurmountable ones. People who do not understand those challenges, and people who take advantage of them, are the bigger issues IMO.
To generalize, but only slightly, we older folk have world views that are both based on, and consistent with, actual experience. We are generally willing to change them given sufficient evidence, but quite reluctant otherwise. And keep in mind that the blatherings of politicians and celebrities and so-called "scientists" or "experts" who don't do actual, evidence-based science, or are on the payroll of those with vested interests in said blatherings, do not constitute "evidence." We tend to remember the Cold War, the "global ice age," innumerable false flag ops, and various other mass delusions, which makes us much more skeptical about the current ones than younger folk, not because they are stupid necessarily, but because they just haven't been around long enough yet to understand that most folks have an agenda, which needs to be taken into account when trying to assess their credibility or lack thereof.
My opinion, colored by the fact that I live in a place with a very low cost of living compared to most of the U.S. (Cleveland, Ohio area):
Lower-class means you really have nowhere near enough resources to guarantee the survival of yourself and your children. Typically you live either in a very violent inner-city area with barely half of the average life expectancy because of crime and drug abuse, or in a very rural area without access to jobs or opportunities of any kind. It is not considered a pejorative. I spent about half my life in this class.
Middle-class means you have the basic essentials of life, you probably have a decent job, and could probably survive a month or so of unemployment. You probably have both some savings, though not necessarily enough, and also long-term debt. You may vacation from time to time. You can afford some luxuries although they must be carefully planned and budgeted. It is possible for a middle-class person to drown under the weight of mortgage, student-loan or medical debt. "Lower-middle-class" are those who are more likely than not to do so at some point in their adult lives; "upper-middle-class" people fairly unlikely to do so, although many people move fluidly among these classes and subclasses. Traditionally this was the largest class in the U.S., and arguably still is, although economic changes have thinned it out considerably. I consider myself lower-middle-class at present; I have a better than average income, but spend way too much and save way too little, because of the demands of my family. It is my ambition to pay off debts and then to save more, which would make me arguably upper-middle-class, but I've never been quite there yet and am not sure I ever will.
Upper-class means you will not likely ever need to worry about the mere essentials of life, and you don't. You can probably afford anything you are ever likely to need or want, although probably not everything. You probably live in much more expensive and safe neighborhoods than most others, and are much more likely to live and work in or near NYC, LA, Chicago, or other very large cities. You may have personal assistants such as maids or drivers, although even among the wealthiest Americans this is much less common than in other parts of the world. You can and most likely do travel anyplace in the world anytime you wish, and probably need to because of your well-paying but probably very demanding job. You likely inherited at least some portion of your wealth, but enough social and economic mobility still exists in the U.S. as to have produced many self-made millionaires. I have known and worked with many people in this category, but have never been close to it myself.
These are not rigid, unchangeable categories, but fairly fluid ones. Very wealthy people become very poor all the time, although they rarely stay that way unless it was due to very bad life choices such as becoming addicted to opiates, a scourge that affects every class, though not necessarily equally. Poor people also become wealthier all the time, and typically do not slide back into extreme poverty except for those same reasons (poor life choices, often, as in my case, taking on excessive debt). But many people, myself included, do not aggressively pursue a state of great wealth. I would be content if my debts were paid off and we had both modest savings and the ability to give more to help the less fortunate.
On the other hand, there are mechanisms which, intentionally or otherwise, work to lessen class mobility. One is that government schools, which most people use, are funded largely through taxes, and vary dramatically in quality, with the crappier ones typically found in poorer places and the better ones in wealthier areas. Another is that American neighborhoods, while no longer rigidly segregated by race, *are* rigidly segregated by income. Poor people tend to know mainly poor people; wealthy people mainly wealthy ones. Cultural, moral, and ethical values tend to vary based on class. Family
" everyone can write software for Windows, and that software will run on every Windows OS. "
Respectfully but strongly disagree.
That used to be true to a large degree. It isn't anymore. Microsoft is trying to drag developers to the UWP, by, among other means, not allowing anything else into the Windows Store. But UWP apps will not run on previous versions of Windows. Meanwhile, although it's very possible to write apps using older technologies like WPF, Winforms and even (gag) VB6, and have them run on most current and recent versions of Windows, none of those technologies is well supported anymore, most do not work well (if at all) on mobile devices and particularly on non-x86 devices, and Microsoft makes no promises to support them indefinitely.
If you want to make apps that will work across as many extant versions of Windows as possible, IMO your best bet is usually for the UI layer to be Web-based, even if they run purely locally. And that has been the case, again IMO, for many years. I've recommended this since the days of IE4, even though, back then, cross-browser compatibility was really tough. Today, unless you need tight integration with hardware, there is typically no reason for either the server or the UI layers to be Microsoft-specific. So, in exchange for the work you must do anyway if you wish to support multiple versions of Windows, you are most of the way toward being genuinely cross-platform already. UWP is more work, for less benefit, and it throws users of older Windows versions right under a very large bus. Unless you *must* support Windows Store, I just don't see any value added.
That's because it isn't a problem with Linux. It is a problem with the package manager, if it is a problem at all, and a very fixable one in almost every case. BTW, my preferred solution to that problem is Gentoo also, but many other solutions exist. Once in a while Gentoo ebuilds don't get properly slotted and then we have the problem here as well, but, again, I've managed to figure out workarounds if not solutions in every case to date, with the singular exception of Gnome, which I only rarely used and now choose not to use mainly for that reason.
At one point I did have exactly the problem addressed in the article; I followed the steps therein, and the problem went away, and hasn't recurred since. I won't pretend I've never had issues with Gentoo; I have, although probably 80% turned out to have been self-inflicted. Nonetheless I find that it has bought me valuable time to not have to deal with all the systemd nonsense so long as I don't try to run Gnome, which I wouldn't anyway (I prefer XFCE). I've no doubt that sooner or later I will be forced to deal with it, but given those two choices, I prefer later rather than sooner, since, by that time, hopefully, some of the initial problems will be cleaned up or at least worked around. I didn't like pulseaudio at first either, and still don't, but I have to grudgingly admit that at some point it did become at least marginally usable, probably not because of LP's well-known aversion to clean architecture and design, but because people who used it helped to clean it up.
FYI, Gentoo and (I think) Slackware are among the distros that have not adopted systemd. I use Gentoo.
Respectfully disagree that legacy infrastructure is necessarily an impediment to the uptake of a "C replacement." As the article noted, any potential "C replacement" will have to interoperate seamlessly with C for a very, very long time. To the extent that C toolchains will be able to interoperate with "replacement C" toolchains and vice versa. This is a high bar, and just one of many, but it is one that Go, Rust, maybe Cx (whatever that is - hadn't even heard of it previously), may one day prove to overcome.
Problem in the former is connecting distant and/or congested points within that area together. NYC at least has the subways and trains. Greater LA is more spread out, has lower population density, has much less intracity/commuter rail than it needs, and may very easily require a several hour trip just to reach the terminal. This diminishes the value of fast intracity travel. You rarely go from terminal to terminal. You go from probably an hour or so away, if you're lucky, to the terminal, then to the other, then from that terminal to your destination, and then back again. The faster you can make the trip between terminals, the more the limiting factor becomes travel to and from them within the two respective metro areas. That in my mind is why the most promising candidates for something like Hyperloop, if/when it ever becomes a real thing, would be between cities that are either (a) relatively uncongested, and/or (b) well-served by existing public transportation networks. IMO, SFO qualifies, though just barely and only because of BART; LA, not so much. Not yet anyway.
East *anyplace* seems in my experience to be questionably safe at best. East Cleveland. East St. Louis. East New York. East L.A. I wonder why that is. (N.B.: I was born in East Cleveland, but a long time ago, well before it reached its current levels of poverty, corruption, and lawlessness.)
Would love to hear Bach-esque completions of works such as the apparently unfinished 1st movement of the Pastorale (BWV 590). I have one in my head that I've never managed to write down, but it is really just regurgitated elements from the piece itself. I know Bach idioms well, having listened multiple times through his completed works (and dozens to hundreds through the organ and keyboard works since I'm an amateur organist). But part of his genius is that he rarely does the formulaic thing one might expect. I don't come close to being able to replicate that.
The Swastika is not a symbol of the Third Reich. It is an ancient Indian symbol that was co-opted by the Third Reich. "Reichturds" demonstrate their ignorance, just as the Nazis did, by claiming it as their own.