A single user's one-off recursive wget seems fine? Browsers also support it iirc, individual pages at very least (and saved to the same place, the links will work).
No doubt it's already in many archive sites though, you could just fetch from them instead of the original?
Though LinkedIn in Firefox with uBlock Origin allowing just enough (not sure if that's relevant, just haven't run it without) does not last long without rocketing CPU & memory usage, fan spinning up, etc. (ime, anyway)
I have no knowledge of lily, but a good reason could be for example that you can do `: print(v)`, but need braces for a multi-line block. Or that braces are the difference between creating a new scope and not. It's not necessarily just syntax for the sake of it.
You mention AVSforum, I'm sure you're watching BluRays (or, err, via a home backup/local streaming solution), of course it makes sense to you.
The median (and roughly 99th percentile for that matter) TV as well as being 65" is being used with Netflix et al. though, and that content already looks worse than you can buy on disc.
8k doesn't need to wait for TV sizes any more, right, but now it needs to wait for home internet speeds (and streaming provider infrastructure/egress costs) for it to make sense.
The convertible is still the car, not a convertible kilt(?!), GP is saying with Scottish as opposed to Californian weather there would be less changing. Say, a single open-top-weather period (two changes) per year. Or none.
(I imagine the Californian poster is changing twice per year too, just using 5-6 ties. With that reading the joke is Hey in Scotland you just keep it closed, never need any more ties.)
But it's also like, we know what we mean, if the Zapotec people/community are fairly insular or at least in marriage/procreation like to be with their own then that's for casual purposes 'mostly pure'.
Otherwise I can't even say I'm 'British', because who knows what mix I am if I go back further than I have record of, which is just silly, we know what we mean.
You're very close to following that line of enquiry to its logical conclusion, which is that our nationalities tell us little of any real value except what our home culture was like where and when we grew up. Personally I've come to regard identifying as any nationality as silly except for legal purposes.
We're humans, and humans have always and always mixed between cultural groups, except in rare instances of total isolation; such people are not 'pure' anything, but they would likely be inbred. There is no 'pure' genetic strain of any race or indeed any organism. Whatever divisions there are between us are extremely blurry and constantly changing.
I don't think it's silly for all purposes, it's silly to be racist about it, to say that 'pure x' is more desirable, or all that's 'allowed' in 'your' country etc., but that doesn't mean there's never any value in communicating 'what our home culture was like where and when we grew up'.
I'm British, my wife isn't, and her parents emigrated from a third country before she was born. Our hypothetical children will not be 'purely' from any one of those cultures (nor would she even say she was 'purely' of her birth country not her parents'), and I think that does convey information.
OK, so if you don't mind, let's take your family as a good example of what I'm saying, and let's further posit a world where Britain completely halts all immigration today, so from some near future point, every child born in Britain is born of British-born parents. Now let's suppose that you have children, and that they remain in Britain, marry locals, and have children of their own, onwards forever, never leaving the country except for holidays.
Since, as you say, your hypothetical children would not be purely British, at what point are your descendents 'pure Brits'? Is it 50 years from now? 100? 500? Now think about what life was like in Britain 50, 100 and 500 years ago. How close would you say the lives of children today are, compared to children in those times? Closer than to children born today in, say, Norway? Consider that 1986 is as far away from today as it was from 1946; someone born today is as distant from someone born in the 80's, as someone born in the 80's was from the end of World War 2.
And think about British culture in the 90's and 00's - it was heavily influenced by US culture at that time; today I imagine things like K-Pop are having an increasing influence. Britain (as indeed most other nations) has for thousands of years been a melting pot of different cultural inputs. In fact, the very notion of 'Britain' has changed over time - the British empire once spanned the globe and included places as diverse as India, South Africa and Singapore. Even the Britain of today is not a single country; would you say that, say, Northern Irish and south-eastern English people are culturally homogeneous?
So, while I do agree that telling me you were born in Britain, or China, or Zimbabwe would help me to calibrate broad expectations about you, I can't see how any of those things is or ever was 'pure' in any way.
Living memory, the three or four generations that people generally know about.
The schoolyard 'I'm 25% Portugese', meaning 'one of my grandparents is Portugese, but the others and parents were born here'. It would be tedious to say 'well I can't offer you a percentage, because I only know about a few generations of my family history, but as far back as I know everyone has been born in the UK'.
No doubt it's already in many archive sites though, you could just fetch from them instead of the original?
reply