> What the fuck? She did everything right. She had a passport, an entry visa, and a return ticket?
None of that is guarantee of entry into the US, which is completely at the discretion of the CBP officer. And the protocol on denial of entry for much longer than this administration has been around is to detain you until you can be put on a flight back to your country of origin. The saga also goes on your record, and you will have to mention & explain it in the DS-160 form for any future visa applications.
Those of us from certain countries who've had cause to visit the US have been well aware of this for decades, with the corresponding game you have to play with the CBP officer (Everything is designed to trip you up. Have every possible document on hand, even if not explicitly mentioned as a requirement. Never use certain trigger words (like work) even if travelling on company time, instead say that it's a business trip. And so on).
It's not even unique to the US either, though US border (and embassy) officials IMO tend to have a pretty big chip on their shoulders. The only place I've had a more hostile experience is the Maldives (the manager of my hotel very kindly vouched that I would leave the country on my return ticket date even though we hadn't spoken at all before my rather frantic call to him, which was the only thing that swayed them enough to let me leave the airport).
Because there is strictly speaking no time limit on how long US customs is allowed to detain non-citizens.
IIRC the only limits are 2 days for you to be taken to a facility (so you're not just being held in an interrogation room in an airport or wherever), and 90 days for you to be removed once there is an order for your deportation. The actual detention in between is limitless. Of course there's incentive to keep people moving through (and most people have a home country/embassy that they can eventually appeal to to expedite things), so in practice it isn't literally a de facto life sentence.
These are things that have been happening at your borders (and, in different forms, at other borders around the world) for years - you're just less likely to see it if you have one of the strongest passports in the world. But to be fair, whenever you wake up is your own morning.
The discoverability is horrible, but in this case there actually is a somewhat accessible way to pay: if you visit https://united.com/inflightpayment, you can add your card details for a specific flight before the flight (possibly also during the flight using in-flight WiFi, but don't quote me on that).
I actually find it more convenient than presenting a card in person, because my country uses chip-and-pin cards and many American (soft-)POS terminals break when presented with one. There's also less of a chance of my bank arbitrarily flagging the transaction as suspicious.
This is just blatantly wrong, as anyone that has actually looked at the project's documentation and code can tell.
Because GStreamer is designed to be modular and plugin-based, all sorts of plugins exist for it (including libav plugins) but it is itself a media framework that is quite capable of replacing ffmpeg. Neither is "higher level" than the other.
I mean, I disagree that a chess board should only ever be represented from the perspective of white. Or rather, I cannot square being even remotely decent at chess and being unable to figure out whose perspective it is from the labelling of the ranks and files.
It's just a norm and has been for centuries. For composed positions it should also generally be white to move.
You're right that this isn't necessary (particularly when the board is labeled) but by doing something weird you're just going to distract and confuse some chunk of people from the point you're trying to make - exactly as happened here.
I don't know, it doesn't make much sense to call the Steam Deck the best mobile platform by dismissing things that a mobile platform should be good at just because you personally don't care about them.
"Beautiful art style" and "cutting-edge graphics" are nowhere near synonymous. They are orthogonally related at best (and many people would even argue that they are opposing goals).
> If you want to interact with your newtypes, you need to either unwrap it or reimplement each typeclass/trait
...or you could just e.g. implement Deref in Rust? In my experience that solves almost all use cases (with the edge case being when something wants to take ownership of the wrapped value, at which point I don't see the problem with unwrapping)
That gets us halfway there. It makes unwrapping easy, but you still need to remember to rewrap if you've implemented anything.
use std::ops::Deref;
trait Test {
fn test(&self);
}
#[derive(Debug)]
struct Wrap<T>(T);
impl<T> Test for Wrap<T> {
fn test(&self) {
()
}
}
impl<T> Deref for Wrap<T> {
type Target = T;
fn deref(&self) -> &Self::Target {
&self.0
}
}
fn main() {
let thing1 = Wrap(3_i32);
let thing2 = Wrap(5_i32);
let sum = *thing1 + *thing2;
thing1.test();
thing2.test();
sum.test(); // error[E0599]: no method named `test` found for type `i32` in the current scope
}
Also using newtypes to reimplement methods on the base type is frowned upon. I believe that this is why #[derive(Deref)] isn't included in the standard library. See below (emphasis mine):
> So, as a simple, first-order takeaway: if the wrapper is a trivial marker, then it can implement Deref. If the wrapper's entire purpose is to manage its inner type, without modifying the extant semantics of that type, it should implement Deref. If T behaves differently than Target when Target would compile with that usage, it shouldn't implement Deref.
It's extremely telling that so many Americans in this thread are comfortably talking about "our local" companies and adversaries to the US, when the article is about a ban in...Canada.
The US and Canada are two of the closest allies in the world, and have been for a very long time. To many Americans, Canadians are also part of "us", at least when discussing global issues or adversaries.
None of that is guarantee of entry into the US, which is completely at the discretion of the CBP officer. And the protocol on denial of entry for much longer than this administration has been around is to detain you until you can be put on a flight back to your country of origin. The saga also goes on your record, and you will have to mention & explain it in the DS-160 form for any future visa applications.
Those of us from certain countries who've had cause to visit the US have been well aware of this for decades, with the corresponding game you have to play with the CBP officer (Everything is designed to trip you up. Have every possible document on hand, even if not explicitly mentioned as a requirement. Never use certain trigger words (like work) even if travelling on company time, instead say that it's a business trip. And so on).
It's not even unique to the US either, though US border (and embassy) officials IMO tend to have a pretty big chip on their shoulders. The only place I've had a more hostile experience is the Maldives (the manager of my hotel very kindly vouched that I would leave the country on my return ticket date even though we hadn't spoken at all before my rather frantic call to him, which was the only thing that swayed them enough to let me leave the airport).