Short version is they cannot govern without a coalition partner, but they gain other rights in the parliament, such as filling important positions in the administration. When they reach 1/3 of the votes, so 33% they have a Sperrminorität, which means they can prevent changes in the constitution and also hinder new judges in the constitutional court.
No, Putin’s Puppet Orban is who is breaking apart the EU, for many years now.
Selbstverständlich muss man sich öffentlich dagegen positionieren. Als in Sachsen lebende Person möchte ich nur darauf hinweisen, dass es sich hier um eine gesellschaftsfähige Meinung und keinen Einzelfall handelt.
I just use RSS in Firefox bookmarks…
Tun wir mal nicht so, als ob das ein Einzelfall wäre. Dieses “Weltbild” triffst du in Sachsen überall.
But I heard the US wanted to bomb the shit out of Iran anyway, if they don’t comply. Why would sanctions be necessary then?
Embarrassing
Bag made so much sense to me in this context lol. But it seems to be actually backpack, no g involved!
Just use a backpack smh
There are two kind of buyers, this smart guy:
and grandpa, who bought it for his grandson billy:
Ist ja wohl keine Frage dass hier Schadensersatz geleistet werden muss. Absolutes Behördenversagen. Wollen mir doch nicht erzählen die wissen nicht wo die Clubs anbauen, die wollen doch sonst jede Kleinigkeit wissen…
Sir, I will make sure to never bother you with a PR and my terrible, terrible code ;)
This is what I would come up with:
try:
if len(foo) == 0:
...
except TypeError:
...
There is no need to add a None check, as foo being None should be considered as a faulty input. Avoiding the possibility of foo being None from the beginning using static checks or testing is of course the preferred solution. But in reality we do not work in such optimal environments, at least I can say that from the perspective of data science, where often procedural, untested code is produced that runs only a few times. But I get your point and I think both paths are viable, but I am also okay with being in the wrong here,
I am not saying it’s better, just that I don’t like the proposed way :) I would argue that being “pythonic” has even less value than the Zen, which I quoted because it’s true, not because it is some strict rule (which it isn’t anyway).
You could argue I also need to write that extra code for the if not case, as I explicitly have to check if it is None if my program somewhere further down expects only lists.
Hunting for those sweet milliseconds is a popular game in the Python community ;) if this mechanism is that important for your program, you should definitely use it, I would do as well!
But None has no len
if not foo:
-> foo could be an empty list or None, it is ambiguous.
len(foo) will lead to an exception TypeError if foo is None, I can cleanly catch that.
It suggests I deal with a boolean when that is not the case. Explicit is better than implicit, and if not foo to check for an empty list may be pythonic, but it’s still implicit af
Yes, he’s great data scientist. He has more stuff on his webpage, e.g. bias analysis of the different polling institutes, be sure to check it out if you like!