It's correct in English. [1] The family of Thomas Mann were representatives of German bourgeoisie. From [2] (machine translated): "Thomas Mann and Heinrich Mann, as well as members of the following generation, became writers; in their numerous, often autobiographically influenced literary works, they explored themes such as the history of the German bourgeoisie and educated middle class, as well as its decadence. Through this, the family itself came to be seen by the public as a symbol and late representative of that very social stratum."
In German it is called "Bürger", yes. Burgher is some weird English spelling of the original french one, and I don't think it applies in any reasonable way to Thomas Mann. In German it really just means "Citizen".
It meant an upper middle class urban citizen, while "Kleinbürger" was their lower middle class counterpart. Buddenbrooks was all about Bürgers, their history and lifestyle. Mann was a member of that class or even of its upper crust, the patricians.
This isn’t hard to understand. “Burgher” is a perfectly legitimate translation of “Bürger” as in “bürgerlicher Mittagstisch”, “Der Bürger duldet nichts Unverständliches im Haus”. “Citizen” is a perfectly legitimate translation of “Bürger” when it comes to “Bürgeramt” or “Weltbürger”.
Have to disagree, "technically" yes, both are interpreted languages, but the ergonomics and mental overhead of doing certain things are wildly different:
In python, doing math or complex string or collection operations is usually a simple oneliner, but calling shell commands or other OS processes requires fiddling with the subprocess module, writing ad-hoc streaming loops, etc - don't even start with piping several commands together.
Bash is the opposite: As long as your task can be structured as a series of shell commands, it absolutely shines - but as soon as you require custom data manipulation in any form, you'll run into awkward edge cases and arbitrary restrictions - even for things that are absolutely basic in other languages.
> In python, ..., calling shell commands or other OS processes requires fiddling with the subprocess module, writing ad-hoc streaming loops, etc - don't even start with piping several commands together.
The subprocess module is horrendous but even if it was great bash is simpler. I just think about trying to create a pipe of processes in python without the danger of blocking.
So far updates work fine. It may change eventually, but as I noted in another comment, it's been 4 years, and none of the updates have required a TPM yet.
That requires the remote machine to be configured to SSH into your local machine. In the scenario where OP's project is useful (SSH to foreign machines) I might not want that.
On the other hand, if the remote machine is mine, it will have my config anyway.
There should be some way to mount a local directory onto a remote system without requiring the remote system to log in to the local system. SSH provides a secure bidirectional communication channel between the two systems. While we normally use sshfs to mount a remote directory to the local system, why should the reverse be impossible? Besides, you could also use NFS over SSH or TLS.
I don't want to be that guy, but I have to ask: this is ephemeral, unauthenticated chat for a handful of people over netcat. Why does it pull >1GB of dependencies?
> Basic phone charger <1A USB power supply was not enough to even finish booting, but a ~2A was enough to boot and launch octo4a
So it's drawing >1A over a single diode? Let's say 1.4A and 700mV voltage drop over the diode, then it's roughly 1W over the diode. Won't it get pretty hot?
I think HTML is exactly the "client-side multimedia file format" you want. I guess what we don't have is an established editor UI. You have to create it yourself.
It's if we had the .docx format but MS Word was read-only. You would have to create the XML and zip it yourself, to be then rendered by Word. That's effectively how I see HTML+js in browsers.
