You can't have a high level language that supports threading and is also easy to use unless you have a GIL. Or at least, if we presume that you absolutely have to have a C/C++ interface for libraries, then you need a GIL to have threads. Otherwise you'd have to make it not allowed to use non-thread-safe code in libraries, and how would you even enforce that? Users won't blame the library, they'll blame the language that is trying to call the library. Rightfully, when everybody else avoids the problems by implementing a GIL.
If you use traditional *NIX fork/exec pattern instead of threads, then the GIL doesn't get in the way. The problem is mostly if you want to stuff a bunch of different processes inside of one process, Java style. Then you'll need to work harder, and that will remain true in any modern high level interpreted language.
Are you still supporting this comment, or do you acknowledge you were full of shit, and the rescue went ahead because they got the water levels low enough?
They walked most of the way out, in actual fact, using SCUBA gear in certain sections, and they've been clear that they were able to go ahead with this plan because of the lower water levels.
Also, the camp that the media were in wasn't even the same camp as the rescuers. Media only had brief access to the command area (inside the caves) for photographs.
It might be that the system of finding that stock ends up having a higher average cost than just throwing a dart at a dartboard.
Picturing a get-rich-quick stock is exactly the same mental process as dreaming about winning the lottery. And as with the lottery, there are people trying to invent systems to predict things better than anybody else, even though if they succeeded the system would be altered to prevent its utility!
I regret it whenever a maladaptive thought pops into my head like, "gosh I wish I had mined bitcoins in 2010!"
It happens to everybody. When it happens to me, I try to replace the thought with two others: The legit opportunity I missed was not cashing in on COBOL programming during Y2K. That one I saw coming, it was clearly real, and I decided to do "real work" instead.
The other thought is, most of blockchain's utility is not in cryptocoins, and the future of digital currency is also probably not in cryptocoins. There is still a giant green field, with real use cases that are yet unserved. I'm not letting it pass me by the way I let Y2K pass by! But I'm not going to tilt at cryptowindmills, either.
In my country cash transactions are not anonymous, the seller is legally required to provide a receipt, and to disclose either their legal name, the name of the legal entity they are representing, or a registered business name.
Also, cryptocurriencies don't offer anonymity; all transactions are recorded for posterity! Just because the people most in need of short-term monetary transfer are conducting illegal activities, and illegal activities benefit from anonymity, that doesn't tell you that cryptocurrencies provide anonymity; it only tells you that criminals are successfully able to create false identities that meet the requirements of the medium.
If it is true that there is a "need" for anonymous transactions, then it is still a blue sky over a green field! But it might also be that it isn't a need at all, but that preventing it is considered a governmental need, and if you offer a product or service that actually anonymizes transactions you'll just go to jail for money laundering.
A hundred years ago most business people still thought that advertising meant informing potential customers about the availability of an offering, though.
You seem to be very determined to convince us that anything with an uncertain outcome is gambling.
I think almost everybody else agrees on the meaning of the words, and they acknowledge that every time you get out of bed you're gambling that it is worth the risks involved, like slipping in the bath.
Where you're expected to draw the line is based on the context of the sentence; if the context is investing, then you should probably be advised that investors casually use the word "gambling" to describe investments with unacceptable risk, but also that certainty is inversely proportionate to rewards, and high rewards are not considered automatically bad. The possibility of high rewards certainly doesn't preclude the activity from being considered investing!
If it is a slur to be honest about a person's job when the media is mis-representing it, fine.
You've been on this site a long time, I already know you're not intelligent enough to comprehend that it is an insult to all the real Navy SEALs who have died on the job, and die during training.
You're quoting a small section of a news report without understanding if it is a literal report or not. You're not understanding what is being communicated. They're not attempting to give you details of his death, they're telling you the general type of job assignment his team was doing, and they're telling you that his partner attempted CPR. That's all they've told us.
And he wouldn't have been delivering the same oxygen that he himself was using; he didn't die from selflessly giving up too much of his own oxygen or something like that. We don't know why he died; if the thing you thought was informative was actually giving details, it would mean that he died because he screwed up the math that beginning divers have to learn. I highly doubt that was what happened; though I guess it is possible.
People don't even seem to consider; which of these mistakes would make him look bad to other divers? Would telling people he's some sort of Special Forces, even though he's from a country that doesn't deploy its military internationally and hasn't fought a major war in hundreds of years make him look good, or look bad, to actual Special Forces soldiers?
IMO it denigrates the service and sacrifice of these teams of (mostly former) elite Thai military divers to misrepresent their service; and further, it is mostly being misrepresented to make a bunch of military officers look more important than they are. That's the same reason why the ambulances have to drive slow to get past a bunch of jerks in uniforms standing in the street who stand there with their backs to the ambulance even as it trying to pass them!
My experience was, I saw a bug report in some open source and tried to fix it, and by the time I had a patch written a better one was already released upstream and I was the last person to upgrade because I was off trying to write a patch.
There are so many freakin' eyeballs available, volunteers are mostly just jerks like me who are getting in the way trying to help! You have to have an inside line to the developers or security researchers to even learn about a bug early enough to have anybody notice even if you understood it as soon as you heard about it.
Even writing new types of network servers; somebody announced they were abandoning a web middleware tool that was popular, and so I started plugging away at an apache module, but within a week somebody else released something similar enough to mine that I just stopped coding and used theirs. Sure, my architecture choices were better, but theirs weren't bad enough to amount to bugs so nobody would ever notice or care.
Programming is easy, the hard part is finding an unserved use case! And fixing known bugs is a pretty obvious use case.
I read half the first senctence, "I said I would consider your POV if you sent supporting materials. Since you can't support the one statement you made with any fact the only logical conclusion..."
Why read more? If you start with that, why would you think your words have value?
Neither of us are encyclopedias. I'm not going to hand-feed you supporting materials. If you don't know how to look things up using resources you trust, take a fucking class in study skills at the community college. Don't ask me to do it for you. If you're so credulous of whatever pap people feed you that you'd want me to "support" your thinking in that way, that already tells me you can't comprehend the ideas that I expressed. Using logical principles. A person who can't do that, also isn't going to provide a response that has value to me. I would rather write words only I will read, than to read words that just regurgitate some mix of crap.
Errors in code are not bugs until they're found. You write the code, then you find out it doesn't do what you expected. That part of "doesn't do what you expected" is the bug.
So the principle is not, "Many eyes makes all bugs reported," or "Many eyes makes code mistakes visible." It was only that when you have a bug, even if it looks like a "deep" (difficult) bug to one person, or a team of people, if enough people look at it somebody will have the experience or perspective to see quickly how to fix it, making it shallow.
This law only begins to be involved once the bug is reported as a bug! There is no law that claims, "enough monkeys make all typewriters write Shakespeare." Only that with enough monkeys, the set of available answers include more questions. And thanks to code testing, you can automate the filtering of which answers answer the question your bug presents.
Some bugs are harder to find than others, sure, but that's just a mealy-mouthed platitude.
The point is, on a small team, some bugs are so hard that they don't even get fixed on the same day they're found. It could takes days or even weeks, historically. Even when they were really working on it.
Open Source hasn't had a hard bug since the 90s. Every bug, no matter how hard, is fixed within hours of there being public knowledge that it exists and hasn't been fixed yet. Getting package manager to apply the patches is much much harder and takes more time than fixing the bugs. Even testing the patches to modern standards takes more time than the fixing of the bugs.
You won't be able to find an example of a bug that even looked hard in the modern age, and yet, small teams still struggle with some of their bugs.
This sounds good to me at first, but then I also think back to `99 when I was using a Free SSH version for everything, very happily, and then I got a client that required access only using a certain version of commercial ssh.
I think this comes down to the whole Free Software vs Open Source split; when there is a split between proprietary and free, then some people will be forced to use a particular one, but if there is an open one such that everybody can use it, then everybody might have compatibility and the freedom to bring their own implementations.
We wouldn't have software like open source tripwire without Free Software + threatened enforcement, but now that that camp has abandoned that type of enforcement I'm not even sure what benefit they have left over licenses like Apache 2 where everybody can reuse the same source and achieve comparability and therefore access.
I think, if OpenSSL had been dual licensed, consultants would be getting clients who demand commercial SSL. So for the developers it would be better, but for the people who have to install it, and who ultimately have more say in what the industry as a whole uses, it would be worse.
So now that half of them have been rescued it has come out that they began the rescue when they did not only because heavy rains were starting, but also because they had pumped most of the water out and there is only one section with a difficult dive, and the rest are only short dives between longer walking sections.
You're really misunderstanding the parts about oxygen levels. You read the part at the start, but you didn't find the more detailed information later in the story.
Authorities say there are concerns about falling oxygen levels in the chamber where the boys and their coach are trapped.
Oxygen was being depleted by the large number of people working inside the cave network, said the Chiang Rai Governor, Narongsak Osotthanakorn.
Authorities are now working to get a 5km (3 mile) cable into the cave to supply the group with air. They are also trying to feed a fibre optic cable through to the group, to connect them to their families for the first time in nearly two weeks.
See, the falling oxygen levels aren't a danger to the kids directly, it is just that the people in charge have to manage how many people they let in, and they manage that by letting in as many "as they can." Of course they're at the limit of the oxygen; that is how Thai authorities manage any type of emergency situation. Of course they keep letting military officers into the cave to stand around and look important, they're not to the absolute limit yet! But they're installing a pipe to increase the number of people that can stand around. They don't manage a crisis the way we do in the west, so it is easy to glance at the BBC and get confused; but the story uses subtle language, like in paragraph 6 where it says "there are mounting concerns about the oxygen level in the chamber." That does NOT mean there is an imminent danger; it doesn't say that. All it says is that there are concerns, and that they're "mounting," which only tells you that the concern is strong enough that they're taking an action; and later it says what the action is, installation of pipes. These chose the specific phrase "mounting concerns" rather than something "imminent danger" for reasons; the level of concern expressed in the words is supposed to imply the details, where they don't have verified details. They don't want to feed you conjecture as fact, instead they offer it as implication so you can draw your own conclusions. But you don't trust their words to be the correct strength; and yet, you rely on them being an authority to support your own conjectures.
The caves are limestone. Even a chamber that appears totally enclosed to humans is porous and lets through plenty of air for the people trapped. If the rock was granite, there would already be deadly pockets in the cave system without oxygen, you wouldn't be able to go in very far without bringing air!
That exact story is the one that informed the comment you relied, BTW. So you could have simply re-read it more closely when you saw my comment.
You don't get to decide what the purposes of money-laundering laws are.
We have a legislature who passes those laws, and we vote on who is in the legislature.
You'd prefer to just tell us what our laws are or why we have them, but you don't matter that much in the world; the range of activities that the current money-laundering laws are designed to combat is something you would learn by listening, not something you would decide by thinking or arguing.
If they go to Saudi Arabia and commit crimes there, they do go to jail there.
That is the way the world works.
You're choosing journalists, but actually yes journalists do get arrested if they go to foreign countries and, while still in that country, write stuff that is illegal in that place. Instead, they go and visit, see what they see, and go home, then they write the story from their own country.
If they open bank accounts in Saudi Arabia, and use those bank accounts to receive payment for their work, and receiving payment for that type of work is illegal in Saudi Arabia, then yes they would risk ending up in a jail there. It is really that simple.
You don't seem to comprehend that they traveled to the US to make transactions that are illegal here, and directed people here to make transactions that they knew were illegal here. Journalists don't do that, they receive payment in countries where their work is legal.
They've pumped the water out of 2/3rds of what was flooded already. There are not "incoming heavy rains," but there likely will be next week.
You're at least right that we have a information differential.
The diver that died was delivering tanks to stockpile along the route, was supposed to be with a partner, but was not. That is expected of Thai divers. How many will die over the next couple months I'd expect to be about the same number as if they were driving the same number of hours on Thai highways, to be honest. It would be a non-zero number for sure. And if there were an equal number of western divers working the same number of hours, they wouldn't have any deaths; for the same reasons that driving on a highway in the UK is fairly safe.
But that said, they don't have a need to continuously stockpiling air tanks after they've placed them. For ongoing air needs they're running pipes. They're almost done, too.
Capital investments like building factories don't come out of profit, except indirectly through depreciation.
I didn't say that, though. So backspace through whatever you typed, figure out what was said first, then after that type out some words if you need to spew.
The oxygen level isn't a real problem. The caves are porous, air comes back in. The lower parts of the caves are not flooded, and are full of army officers standing around being in charge, even though they're not divers and not doing anything. How much oxygen they can pump in determines how many people they can let stand around. But they're piping it in, they're almost done with the last section of piping and then they can all stand around until the end.
A (former Navy) diver died, but we know nothing about it other than that. Thai people do not share the western concepts of the importance of honesty in reporting; when reporting on a death, they value formalized politeness and they're not accustomed to thinking about the value to society in sharing accurate details. The statement from his partner doesn't paint a clear picture; they were supposed to be diving in pairs, but his partner found him already unconscious? And that is the whole statement, other than that chest compressions were performed. So maybe they were assigned partners, but actually diving alone and the partner was just somebody assigned to the same area? Or perhaps he got lost, and since that might make him look bad, and he just died, they don't want to say it. But without the details, we can't assess if it implies dangers that the kids would face.
If you've ever seen the traffic in Thailand, you'd understand the level of danger to life that Thai people are used to casually accepting. Just because somebody died, that doesn't imply to me there is an unavoidable danger, only that there is a danger that is deadly if not avoided.
Also, they've pumped out the sections of water from about 2 miles of tunnel, (it wasn't flooded the whole way, just certain spots that bar passage) there is only about a mile now from the last flooded section to where the boys are stuck. They might actually walk out, and this week. Next week is when the rainy season normally would start; they may or may not be able to pump enough water out before then for them to walk out. Otherwise, there is only one narrow section left where they would have to pass through alone. That's also the lowest point, and the more they pump out the less dangerous that section is.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't have a high level language that supports threading and is also easy to use unless you have a GIL. Or at least, if we presume that you absolutely have to have a C/C++ interface for libraries, then you need a GIL to have threads. Otherwise you'd have to make it not allowed to use non-thread-safe code in libraries, and how would you even enforce that? Users won't blame the library, they'll blame the language that is trying to call the library. Rightfully, when everybody else avoids the problems by implementing a GIL.
If you use traditional *NIX fork/exec pattern instead of threads, then the GIL doesn't get in the way. The problem is mostly if you want to stuff a bunch of different processes inside of one process, Java style. Then you'll need to work harder, and that will remain true in any modern high level interpreted language.
LOL nope.
Are you still supporting this comment, or do you acknowledge you were full of shit, and the rescue went ahead because they got the water levels low enough?
They walked most of the way out, in actual fact, using SCUBA gear in certain sections, and they've been clear that they were able to go ahead with this plan because of the lower water levels.
Also, the camp that the media were in wasn't even the same camp as the rescuers. Media only had brief access to the command area (inside the caves) for photographs.
It might be that the system of finding that stock ends up having a higher average cost than just throwing a dart at a dartboard.
Picturing a get-rich-quick stock is exactly the same mental process as dreaming about winning the lottery. And as with the lottery, there are people trying to invent systems to predict things better than anybody else, even though if they succeeded the system would be altered to prevent its utility!
I regret it whenever a maladaptive thought pops into my head like, "gosh I wish I had mined bitcoins in 2010!"
It happens to everybody. When it happens to me, I try to replace the thought with two others: The legit opportunity I missed was not cashing in on COBOL programming during Y2K. That one I saw coming, it was clearly real, and I decided to do "real work" instead.
The other thought is, most of blockchain's utility is not in cryptocoins, and the future of digital currency is also probably not in cryptocoins. There is still a giant green field, with real use cases that are yet unserved. I'm not letting it pass me by the way I let Y2K pass by! But I'm not going to tilt at cryptowindmills, either.
In my country cash transactions are not anonymous, the seller is legally required to provide a receipt, and to disclose either their legal name, the name of the legal entity they are representing, or a registered business name.
Also, cryptocurriencies don't offer anonymity; all transactions are recorded for posterity! Just because the people most in need of short-term monetary transfer are conducting illegal activities, and illegal activities benefit from anonymity, that doesn't tell you that cryptocurrencies provide anonymity; it only tells you that criminals are successfully able to create false identities that meet the requirements of the medium.
If it is true that there is a "need" for anonymous transactions, then it is still a blue sky over a green field! But it might also be that it isn't a need at all, but that preventing it is considered a governmental need, and if you offer a product or service that actually anonymizes transactions you'll just go to jail for money laundering.
A hundred years ago most business people still thought that advertising meant informing potential customers about the availability of an offering, though.
You seem to be very determined to convince us that anything with an uncertain outcome is gambling.
I think almost everybody else agrees on the meaning of the words, and they acknowledge that every time you get out of bed you're gambling that it is worth the risks involved, like slipping in the bath.
Where you're expected to draw the line is based on the context of the sentence; if the context is investing, then you should probably be advised that investors casually use the word "gambling" to describe investments with unacceptable risk, but also that certainty is inversely proportionate to rewards, and high rewards are not considered automatically bad. The possibility of high rewards certainly doesn't preclude the activity from being considered investing!
That's not investing. Speculating, maybe. More like gambling.
That's positively derptastic.
Did you know that "speculative" is literally[sic] one of the enumerated risk levels in investing?
I don't think you understand what that acronym means.
die = decease in earnest.
There have long been too many Earnests in the world. I knew one and he was a total [REDACTED]!!!
If it is a slur to be honest about a person's job when the media is mis-representing it, fine.
You've been on this site a long time, I already know you're not intelligent enough to comprehend that it is an insult to all the real Navy SEALs who have died on the job, and die during training.
You're quoting a small section of a news report without understanding if it is a literal report or not. You're not understanding what is being communicated. They're not attempting to give you details of his death, they're telling you the general type of job assignment his team was doing, and they're telling you that his partner attempted CPR. That's all they've told us.
And he wouldn't have been delivering the same oxygen that he himself was using; he didn't die from selflessly giving up too much of his own oxygen or something like that. We don't know why he died; if the thing you thought was informative was actually giving details, it would mean that he died because he screwed up the math that beginning divers have to learn. I highly doubt that was what happened; though I guess it is possible.
People don't even seem to consider; which of these mistakes would make him look bad to other divers? Would telling people he's some sort of Special Forces, even though he's from a country that doesn't deploy its military internationally and hasn't fought a major war in hundreds of years make him look good, or look bad, to actual Special Forces soldiers?
IMO it denigrates the service and sacrifice of these teams of (mostly former) elite Thai military divers to misrepresent their service; and further, it is mostly being misrepresented to make a bunch of military officers look more important than they are. That's the same reason why the ambulances have to drive slow to get past a bunch of jerks in uniforms standing in the street who stand there with their backs to the ambulance even as it trying to pass them!
My experience was, I saw a bug report in some open source and tried to fix it, and by the time I had a patch written a better one was already released upstream and I was the last person to upgrade because I was off trying to write a patch.
There are so many freakin' eyeballs available, volunteers are mostly just jerks like me who are getting in the way trying to help! You have to have an inside line to the developers or security researchers to even learn about a bug early enough to have anybody notice even if you understood it as soon as you heard about it.
Even writing new types of network servers; somebody announced they were abandoning a web middleware tool that was popular, and so I started plugging away at an apache module, but within a week somebody else released something similar enough to mine that I just stopped coding and used theirs. Sure, my architecture choices were better, but theirs weren't bad enough to amount to bugs so nobody would ever notice or care.
Programming is easy, the hard part is finding an unserved use case! And fixing known bugs is a pretty obvious use case.
I read half the first senctence, "I said I would consider your POV if you sent supporting materials. Since you can't support the one statement you made with any fact the only logical conclusion..."
Why read more? If you start with that, why would you think your words have value?
Neither of us are encyclopedias. I'm not going to hand-feed you supporting materials. If you don't know how to look things up using resources you trust, take a fucking class in study skills at the community college. Don't ask me to do it for you. If you're so credulous of whatever pap people feed you that you'd want me to "support" your thinking in that way, that already tells me you can't comprehend the ideas that I expressed. Using logical principles. A person who can't do that, also isn't going to provide a response that has value to me. I would rather write words only I will read, than to read words that just regurgitate some mix of crap.
You have a problem comprehending tenses.
Errors in code are not bugs until they're found. You write the code, then you find out it doesn't do what you expected. That part of "doesn't do what you expected" is the bug.
So the principle is not, "Many eyes makes all bugs reported," or "Many eyes makes code mistakes visible." It was only that when you have a bug, even if it looks like a "deep" (difficult) bug to one person, or a team of people, if enough people look at it somebody will have the experience or perspective to see quickly how to fix it, making it shallow.
This law only begins to be involved once the bug is reported as a bug! There is no law that claims, "enough monkeys make all typewriters write Shakespeare." Only that with enough monkeys, the set of available answers include more questions. And thanks to code testing, you can automate the filtering of which answers answer the question your bug presents.
Some bugs are harder to find than others, sure, but that's just a mealy-mouthed platitude.
The point is, on a small team, some bugs are so hard that they don't even get fixed on the same day they're found. It could takes days or even weeks, historically. Even when they were really working on it.
Open Source hasn't had a hard bug since the 90s. Every bug, no matter how hard, is fixed within hours of there being public knowledge that it exists and hasn't been fixed yet. Getting package manager to apply the patches is much much harder and takes more time than fixing the bugs. Even testing the patches to modern standards takes more time than the fixing of the bugs.
You won't be able to find an example of a bug that even looked hard in the modern age, and yet, small teams still struggle with some of their bugs.
This sounds good to me at first, but then I also think back to `99 when I was using a Free SSH version for everything, very happily, and then I got a client that required access only using a certain version of commercial ssh.
I think this comes down to the whole Free Software vs Open Source split; when there is a split between proprietary and free, then some people will be forced to use a particular one, but if there is an open one such that everybody can use it, then everybody might have compatibility and the freedom to bring their own implementations.
We wouldn't have software like open source tripwire without Free Software + threatened enforcement, but now that that camp has abandoned that type of enforcement I'm not even sure what benefit they have left over licenses like Apache 2 where everybody can reuse the same source and achieve comparability and therefore access.
I think, if OpenSSL had been dual licensed, consultants would be getting clients who demand commercial SSL. So for the developers it would be better, but for the people who have to install it, and who ultimately have more say in what the industry as a whole uses, it would be worse.
Exactly! Security audits are not the same as known bugs, so they'll need some new law, some new motivating principle.
The answer isn't yes or no, the answer is just, "You didn't understand Linus' Law."
So now that half of them have been rescued it has come out that they began the rescue when they did not only because heavy rains were starting, but also because they had pumped most of the water out and there is only one section with a difficult dive, and the rest are only short dives between longer walking sections.
You're really misunderstanding the parts about oxygen levels. You read the part at the start, but you didn't find the more detailed information later in the story.
See, the falling oxygen levels aren't a danger to the kids directly, it is just that the people in charge have to manage how many people they let in, and they manage that by letting in as many "as they can." Of course they're at the limit of the oxygen; that is how Thai authorities manage any type of emergency situation. Of course they keep letting military officers into the cave to stand around and look important, they're not to the absolute limit yet! But they're installing a pipe to increase the number of people that can stand around. They don't manage a crisis the way we do in the west, so it is easy to glance at the BBC and get confused; but the story uses subtle language, like in paragraph 6 where it says "there are mounting concerns about the oxygen level in the chamber." That does NOT mean there is an imminent danger; it doesn't say that. All it says is that there are concerns, and that they're "mounting," which only tells you that the concern is strong enough that they're taking an action; and later it says what the action is, installation of pipes. These chose the specific phrase "mounting concerns" rather than something "imminent danger" for reasons; the level of concern expressed in the words is supposed to imply the details, where they don't have verified details. They don't want to feed you conjecture as fact, instead they offer it as implication so you can draw your own conclusions. But you don't trust their words to be the correct strength; and yet, you rely on them being an authority to support your own conjectures.
The caves are limestone. Even a chamber that appears totally enclosed to humans is porous and lets through plenty of air for the people trapped. If the rock was granite, there would already be deadly pockets in the cave system without oxygen, you wouldn't be able to go in very far without bringing air!
That exact story is the one that informed the comment you relied, BTW. So you could have simply re-read it more closely when you saw my comment.
You don't get to decide what the purposes of money-laundering laws are.
We have a legislature who passes those laws, and we vote on who is in the legislature.
You'd prefer to just tell us what our laws are or why we have them, but you don't matter that much in the world; the range of activities that the current money-laundering laws are designed to combat is something you would learn by listening, not something you would decide by thinking or arguing.
If they go to Saudi Arabia and commit crimes there, they do go to jail there.
That is the way the world works.
You're choosing journalists, but actually yes journalists do get arrested if they go to foreign countries and, while still in that country, write stuff that is illegal in that place. Instead, they go and visit, see what they see, and go home, then they write the story from their own country.
If they open bank accounts in Saudi Arabia, and use those bank accounts to receive payment for their work, and receiving payment for that type of work is illegal in Saudi Arabia, then yes they would risk ending up in a jail there. It is really that simple.
You don't seem to comprehend that they traveled to the US to make transactions that are illegal here, and directed people here to make transactions that they knew were illegal here. Journalists don't do that, they receive payment in countries where their work is legal.
They've pumped the water out of 2/3rds of what was flooded already. There are not "incoming heavy rains," but there likely will be next week.
You're at least right that we have a information differential.
The diver that died was delivering tanks to stockpile along the route, was supposed to be with a partner, but was not. That is expected of Thai divers. How many will die over the next couple months I'd expect to be about the same number as if they were driving the same number of hours on Thai highways, to be honest. It would be a non-zero number for sure. And if there were an equal number of western divers working the same number of hours, they wouldn't have any deaths; for the same reasons that driving on a highway in the UK is fairly safe.
But that said, they don't have a need to continuously stockpiling air tanks after they've placed them. For ongoing air needs they're running pipes. They're almost done, too.
Capital investments like building factories don't come out of profit, except indirectly through depreciation.
I didn't say that, though. So backspace through whatever you typed, figure out what was said first, then after that type out some words if you need to spew.
At least we agreed that you don't understand English, so it isn't like you didn't understand any of the words at all. That's something.
Unlike you, I can read a financial statement, yes.
You're just waving your hands and hoping nobody else understands the numbers either. LMFAO!
They're a corporation, their numbers aren't secrets.
The oxygen level isn't a real problem. The caves are porous, air comes back in. The lower parts of the caves are not flooded, and are full of army officers standing around being in charge, even though they're not divers and not doing anything. How much oxygen they can pump in determines how many people they can let stand around. But they're piping it in, they're almost done with the last section of piping and then they can all stand around until the end.
A (former Navy) diver died, but we know nothing about it other than that. Thai people do not share the western concepts of the importance of honesty in reporting; when reporting on a death, they value formalized politeness and they're not accustomed to thinking about the value to society in sharing accurate details. The statement from his partner doesn't paint a clear picture; they were supposed to be diving in pairs, but his partner found him already unconscious? And that is the whole statement, other than that chest compressions were performed. So maybe they were assigned partners, but actually diving alone and the partner was just somebody assigned to the same area? Or perhaps he got lost, and since that might make him look bad, and he just died, they don't want to say it. But without the details, we can't assess if it implies dangers that the kids would face.
If you've ever seen the traffic in Thailand, you'd understand the level of danger to life that Thai people are used to casually accepting. Just because somebody died, that doesn't imply to me there is an unavoidable danger, only that there is a danger that is deadly if not avoided.
Also, they've pumped out the sections of water from about 2 miles of tunnel, (it wasn't flooded the whole way, just certain spots that bar passage) there is only about a mile now from the last flooded section to where the boys are stuck. They might actually walk out, and this week. Next week is when the rainy season normally would start; they may or may not be able to pump enough water out before then for them to walk out. Otherwise, there is only one narrow section left where they would have to pass through alone. That's also the lowest point, and the more they pump out the less dangerous that section is.
I doubt they'd manage dban, if you want these cows to make progress that easy you'd have to somehow teach them to follow a shepherd.
No, you're going to have to team up with app guy for this one. Make it easier.