On a mobile phone it’s super easy. Long press the hyphen button and swipe over to the dash.

On Mac it’s pretty easy still, but requires a little more knowledge. Option-shift-dash. (Without the shift gives you an en dash.)

On Windows it’s the completely arcane alt-0151, and only possible if you have a numpad. I memorised it like 15 years ago and have regularly used it since, but it’s hard to blame people for not doing so.

No idea about Linux.

If you were actually a fiend for dashes, you’d have used an em dash—not used a hyphen as a stand-in for one.

Hmm unfortunately I don’t know those two well enough to provide a rec for something similar here. There’s a lot of diversity in our bikkie isles though so I’m sure you’ll find something you like.

Happy cake day!

unless it is made to pose a direct threat to them

This is some unfortunately weasely phrasing when it comes to international diplomacy. Don’t forget Israel claimed that Iran was “posing a direct threat to them” before they proactively decided to fire missiles at Iran.

I certainly hope China doesn’t invade Taiwan. But if they do, I have almost zero doubt that it will be after fabricating some sort of nonsense casus belli that gives them a veneer of legitimacy.

What did you misread? I don’t actually see any evidence anywhere of a mistake from you.

They are not certainly using int

Probably why I said “almost certainly”. And I stand by that. We’re not talking about chat_participant_id, we’re talking about GROUP_CHAT_LIMIT, probably a constant somewhere. And we’re talking about a value that would require a 9-bit unsigned int to store it, at a minimum (and therefore at least a 16-bit integer in sizes that actually exist for types). Unless it’s 8-bit and interprets a 0 as 256, which is highly unorthodox and would require bespoke coding basically all over instead of a basic num <= GROUP_CHAT_LIMIT.

I don’t think the jury necessarily made a mistake here to be clear. They had access to far more detail than us. I trust that the jury did a good job here.

Have you watched the SBS reality TV series ‘The Jury: Death on the Staircase’?

I have not. Is it good?

It was a frustrating insight into how difficult it is for some people to understand the difference between these two things

For me I think the problem might be the opposite. I’ve not been on a jury, but I think I might have trouble distinguishing between beyond reasonable doubt and beyond any doubt, and I might have trouble returning a guilty verdict in the face of anything other than 100% certainty. But I haven’t actually been there to know for sure how I’d react.

Yeah I thought the same. Obviously the jury has access to much more detail than we do, but based on media reporting of the evidence I thought she probably did it, but I don’t think I could have returned a verdict of guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

she can still appeal this decision

She can appeal, it’s important to remember that appeals can only be on the basis of a mistake of law. So for example, if the judge of the case permitted the prosecution to present evidence that he shouldn’t have allowed, or if it’s determined that his jury instructions were heavily biased, that might get up on appeal.

An appeal can usually* not decide that the jury was just wrong in terms of which evidence they decided was more persuasive than others. Based on the information that’s public so far, there’s almost zero chance of a successful appeal. Just because you or I, or even a High Court judge would have (based on media reporting of the evidence) decided it didn’t meet the burden of “beyond reasonable doubt”, isn’t sufficient for an overturning of the jury’s decision.

The media hasn’t been allowed to report on decisions made by the judge while the jury wasn’t in the room (which may have included discussions about whether particular evidence is admissible) while the trial was still ongoing to prevent potentially tainting the jury. Now that it’s over we might begin to learn that sort of thing. That’s where appealable factors might be hiding.

* Pell seems to put doubt into this, and frankly created an enormous amount of distrust in the legal system’s ability to hold power to account. There’s some very shaky legal argumentation behind it (basically: the defence presented evidence that, if accepted, would necessarily result in a finding of not guilty, and the prosecution did not specifically do anything to try to refute that evidence)

Except that they’re almost certainly just using int, which is almost certainly at least 32 bits.

256 is chosen because the people writing the code are programmers. And just like regular people like multiples of 10, programmers like powers of 2. They feel like nice round numbers.

Not proportional. FPTP per district.

There are lots of logical reasons why someone would take a car to a supermarket in a city. Even in a well-designed city many people will choose to do it.

The lady in this story got stranded when her car broke down after she drove it to the store. That should not happen. She should have alternative options.

I 100% tell people “I play D&D” or answer “are you busy this weekend” with “I’ve got D&D” even though I haven’t played D&D since COVID and even before then I had done multiple campaigns and one-shots in other systems.

Supposedly Mage M5 is in progress!

Lendlease, IKEA and Fortescue

Wait, is that seriously it? 3 companies?

Ok? And the relevance of that small minority to either the principles of good urban design, or to the story in the OP is?

Becoming a republic does not necessitate switching to a presidential system or establishing a politicised constitution (which is, in turn, part of what led to America’s activist judiciary).

“recognising” a government seems to be tantamount to acknowledging that government is legitimate and representative of the people

I agree with your conclusion (recognition should be based entirely on who has Actual Control, in cases where that can be clearly determined), but not with this particular explanation. Nobody “recognises” Taiwan, but it has nothing to do with believing it’s illegitimate or unrepresentative. It has to do with the fact that China has a hissy fit if you do.

Ok? And?

Were they, like us, trying to solve a mystery as they were reading?

I’m not completely sure if that’s relevant in this case, because Dracula has already been pretty specific about this earlier. This passage was basically just a reminder of what we already knew. He just made that reminder far more on the nose than I think would make the best story today (possibly because of genre conventions of his day).

But to answer the question you posed on its own terms…I think yes. Mystery novels were already growing in popularity, with the introduction of Sherlock Holmes a decade earlier, and detective fiction in forms like Poe’s The Murders in the Rue Morgue and Wilkie Collins’ The Woman in White (not to be confused with the song of the same name from the unproduced West End Dracula musical) coming out decades earlier. It would only be just over 20 years after Dracula’s release that Ronald Knox would issue his 10 Commandments of Detective Fiction, indicating by that time not only was detective fiction widespread, but so were attitudes of reading them with an eye to solving the mystery.