This is a quote from the resolution:

contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance

It’s not specifically against nazis. It’s against things like putting minorities into labour camps, jails, etc. You know, the kind of thing a lot of the places that voted green actively do this very moment.

But let’s not let that bring our great ideals down. Surely they truly are against the very thing they do, they just can’t help themselves and need the rest of the world to make them stop. Or something?

Do let me know if you have the time to read it. I’ll do the same if I find some myself.

Precisely the Russian rhetoric on and around the Ukrainian war was what got me suspicious.

It could be that western countries just generally are not against nazis or neo-nazis and actively shoot down resolutions against negative things about nazis. That is not however my experience at all, or the de facto state of the law in many countries, such as Germany, that very strongly condemn any nazi associations or symbolism as unlawful. Do note that they also abstained for this one. There’s a reason for that, and while I could be entirely off base, I’m pretty sure it’s not that the western democracies just like nazis and Russia for example is just so nice and honorful to dare go against the western consensus on liking nazis.

This seems a bit too convenient a spread to be as simple as that. The resolution very likely was phrased in a loaded way or had some bit that was dubious. Seeing as the second red one is Ukraine and all of the west is yellow, while Russia, Iran, China, India etc are green, there very likely is context that isn’t being given to us, either intentionally or by accident.

Edit: With Russia, China, India, especially, I mean their adventures with oppression of minorities and unequality in general between cultural groups or heritages. I’m not saying the West is without fault or anything, but clearly the ones voting green are neither. They probably wouldn’t vote against their own alignments here unless it’s just word salad without meaning or responsibilities. Which is something I’m confident would lead a lot of Europe at least not accept it because it’s just a watered down version of something actually desirable.

Yup, that seam/twist there on the foreground is almost a definitive giveaway

Edit: I mean I guess that especially a rich person could, for some reason, wear a weird ass scarf designed by someone who thinks in a very out-of-the-box way… but which is more likely?

Just saying, Steam controller is great and works amazingly still, made only better by the ongoing updates to steam input.

I’m not sure what else they’d need to do. Other than still produce it, I suppose 😅

Yeah, the two aren’t equivalent and the original has more conditions than the new one, so without context this just doesn’t make sense in this example.

A is “” only when B is also “”, otherwise we return f()

In the new one we simply say that regardless of what B is, we’ll just call f(), entirely skipping the case where B == “”.

Probably this specific condition checking was moved to the inner scope of f(), but this example does not tell us (who don’t know the context) that. Or maybe the check is redundant, but that also isn’t signaled in any way.

Or then maybe I’m just oblivious to the optimization, in which case I can see why the maintainer would take their time figuring that out. It’s not anything obvious based on that alone, at least to me, and I would say I have some experience in this field.

Edit: But yeah this is basically just semantics, I’m sure they gave apt description in the PR, so the context would be explained there and none of this really matters. I just like to ruminate about little things like this for some reason. Didn’t mean to imply they didn’t do a good PR, just that this specific example was either confusing or confused.