Conventional Commit messages have big https://goomics.net/361 energy. Or at least the mechanisms that repositories use to programmatically enforce their use.
(I can't believe nobody has pointed this out yet.)
I lived there, and I am familiar with that. I would be happy if they did away with all of it, including the state-administered lottery. But this is a great start of low-hanging fruit.
Piggdekk in Norway are equivalent to North American studded tires. When I lived in the northern parts of the U.S., I had a set of these for times around freezing rains.
Beyond the questions of winter weather properties, there are adjacent tradeoffs between the tire types (outside of studded):
1. Fuel economy
2. Noise
3. Degree of particulate pollution emission
I'm sure that the all-season tires probably have some negative tradeoffs in these regards to, which yields a choose the most optimal product for the time of year. All-season tires to me seem like a convenience food for places where the weather can be legitimately bad.
One other difference that is hard to articulate to North American drivers with respect to understanding Scandinavia and roads: there are places where snow and ice will literally not be removed (maybe not even removeable) from the road when plowed (I presume until spring melt). It just becomes a thick ice pack over the course of weeks. I never encountered any roads in my life (including Northern Minnesota) that were this inclement. North American roads tend to be cleared (plowing or melting) to asphalt or pavement.
All-season tires aren't simply a matter of convenience, they offer a safety benefit. If you aren't driving at normal highway speeds, even if it's the dead of winter and the air is below freezing, your tires will heat up and the winter tires won't have as much traction. The disadvantage on dry roads can be several times what the advantage was on contaminated roads, including during the winter.
Driving discipline, culture, and rules in North America are Mickey Mouse.
The reality of car dependency there means that there are people driving and owning cars who can't really afford to do it properly, nor do they know they need to do it properly (e.g., having a second set of tires for the winter). You can see this evidenced by the rust buckets on the road that look like they are one pothole away from losing part of the vehicle body. Deferred maintenance and investment everywhere and in everything …
The United States also covers a vast difference in climate. What good are snow tires for people in South Florida, or Texas, or New Mexico? Where I live I switch between summer and all season cause we get enough snow to justify snow tires once a decade for a couple
of days. This year has been the worse with two weekends with a decent amount of snow that was cleaned off the roads by Tuesday.
Yeah, it was interesting to see some above-ground-to-the-premises power delivery in some of the smaller Norwegian villages above the arctic circle. Things looked rather robust, though.
I lived in the Oklahoma and in Minnesota, and the difference there is already stark:
* OK suffered from plenty of storm-induced winter power outages (massive freezing rain cycles were common in my life). My mother's cotton bath robe, which she kept using until late in her life, had burn marks from when she reached for something over a lit candle during a power outage when I was four years old.
* MN suffers some, but people knew to develop meaningful contingency plans.
Both states have variegated buried-power-to-the-premises usage. It's not really to be expected as the norm in either place, but MN has far more than OK (funnily enough I grew up in a place in OK with it). Either way, the infrastructure robustness in North America looks like it arose from a dismal cost-benefit analysis versus a societal welfare consideration.
I left North America about 14 years ago for Europe. The difference is stark. We've only had one significant power interruption in that time (not even in winter); whereas stochastic neighborhood outages were commonplace in North America. What really freaks me out about the situation in North America is just the poor insulation of the structures and their low thermal mass. They will get cold fast.
Aside: A lot of friends and family in North America balked at the idea of getting a heat pump due to performance during a power outage: "when the power goes out, I can still run my gas." When I asked them whether the house was heated with forced air or used an electronic thermostatic switches, the snarky smile turned to a grimace.
When you live in a cold place, you learn to do things differently. You're naive if you don't pack warm blankets and water in your vehicle, for instance. You never know when you might find yourself stranded somewhere due to vehicular breakdown …
> whereas stochastic neighborhood outages were commonplace in North America
I believe this has to do with the design of the North American split phase vs European three-phase grid. The European grid has more centralized, larger neighborhood step-down transformers, whereas the US has many more decentralized smaller pole-mounted transformers. NA proponents say any given outage will affect fewer people, EU proponents say it's easier to maintain fewer pieces of infrastructure.
(That said I live in Japan where we have a US-style grid and have only had like 2, <5 min outages during typhoons and nothing else so maybe it's just the quality of the maintenance)
or might find SOMEONE ELSE stranded somewhere due to vehicular breakdown.
yes, obviously "put on your own oxygen mask before helping others" (so you remain an asset instead of a liability), but please remember the "helping others" part (so you remain an asset instead of a liability).
If you are going to get into the business of introducing order dependence to test cases through global state (see my other reply on the parent), you will always want the cleanup to work correctly.
1. Using (testing.TB).Cleanup is a good defensive habit to have if you author test helpers, especially if the test helpers (see: (testing.TB).Helper) themselves do something (e.g., resource provisioning) that requires ordered teardown. Using (testing.TB).Cleanup is better than returning a cancellation or cleanup function from them.
2. (testing.TB).Cleanup has stronger guarantees about when it is called, especially when the test case itself crashes. Example: https://go.dev/play/p/a3j6O9RK_OK.
I am certain that I am forgetting another edge case or two here.
Generally nobody should be designing their APIs to be testable through mutable global state. That solves half the problem here.
(I can't believe nobody has pointed this out yet.)
reply