migmit: (Default)
I took only one picture that day, in the train. Arlanda express, which goes from Stockholm to Arlanda airport and back. Most of it looks fairly normal, but there is this one area...
147
That's all, folks!
migmit: (Default)
In the morning I went shopping for some souvenirs. Found this in one of the shops.
095

Some more local wildlife.
096

Again, Stockholm is pretty much built on water.
097

So good an idea for the storefront, that I don't really mind giving those guys some free advertizing.
098

The narrower the street, the denser the crowd.
099

Taking a selfie with the smallest statue in the world proved rather difficult. I guess I understand the merits of selfie sticks now.
100

I've never seen a bicycle combined with a wheelchair.
101

Just some Swedes having fun.
102

The weather was nice.
103

The jacket wasn't needed.
104

Just two locals resting.
105

Ducks. Although I'm not sure the closest one, black with white forehead, is a duck.
106

I don't know what those batons over the road are supposed to be.
107

Some hotel. Clever use of space: part of the fancy angular building is removed to make room for a trash can.
108

And after some rest I went on a cruise near Stockholm.
109

We are leaving.
110

This is Kastellet citadel. Swedish flag over it signals that there is no war currently. If Sweden goes to war, the flag would be pulled down.
111

An amusement park.
112

We weren't the only ones to have a bright idea to call a boat "Cinderella".
113

And whoever came up with this idea was a bona fide genius.
114

We turn and leave Kastellet and the amusement park behind.
115

How can something that big stay above water?
116

"I'm a ship too!"
117

Strange fountain. I don't know whom that figure on top represents.
118

Our boat is kind of like a bus, or a local train maybe. Every few minutes it makes a stop at some island.
119

And there are lots of islands, sometimes separated by really narrow straits.
120

Apparently, some boats lift their nose when docking.
121

It's getting darker.
122

Sometimes it's not even clear if those are separate islands, or parts of the same big one.
123

One of the stops.
124

Just a rock in the middle of nowhere.
125

Another stop. Somebody is getting on a smaller boat.
126

And this, I think, is a garage. For boats.
127

The jacket is definitely needed here.
128

Another stop. Grandma just came by busboat, her family meets her.
129

I've heard sunsets in Stockholm can be really beautiful. This is not exactly Stockholm...
130

...but even one of the sailors came up to take a picture.
131

This looks like a gigantic ancient crab.
132

Here we actually stopped twice: on the left side and on the right side.
133

Same rock we've seen earlier.
134

It's getting really dark.
135

Some birds flying high...
136

...and low.
137

Unexpected meeting.
138

I've taken a lot more photograph after that, but most of them are totally dark.
139

This island of light far away is another ferry.
140

We've seen this castle before, but during the day it wasn't so impressive.
141

Almost back.
142

Interestingly, the amusement park still works. I've heard some children's voices coming from it.
143

Kastellet again. There is no flag now, but that's OK: they take it down in the evening and put it back up in the morning.
144

Just a minute before docking.
145

On my way to the hotel I found the same piece of modern art, and it looks a bit... different now.
146

To be continued...
migmit: (Default)
On Wednesday I only had a plan for the evening, so, I wanted to walk around some more. Looks like pigeons are doing pretty good.
051

Soldiers, walking around the king's castle.
052

Followed by some more realistically-looking soldiers... except what's with their boots?
053

Walking around, I found myself at the zoo entrance. I did not expect that.
054

Holy family.
055

Somebody making a splash.
056

Oh, it's those guys.
057

Probably the nicest statue of a bear I've seen.
058

Live bears weren't so easy to photograph. Their place is gigantic.
059

Piglet and his family.
060

The wolf didn't mind being photographed.
061

Some wild goats, I guess.
062

I'm pretty sure that's a sloth, but I've never saw his face.
063

I've also bought a ticket to aquarium, and was again right to do so: apparently, they also keep monkeys there.
064

Sleeping lemurs.
065

Same lemurs, from above.
066

Meerkat, standing guard. Or rather sitting.
067

There are some more traditional animals in the aquarium too.
068

They don't move too much.
069

This guy seems mildly annoyed by all the attention.
070

I don't remember who those are.
071

A house rat has a miniature house build for her.
072

Looks like real love.
073

A tiny frog.
074

Some of the inhabitants love being photographed.
075

That meerkat guard was not alone. He was keeping others safe.
076

I went back to the lemurs, even though though there were some "STOP" signs on the way.
077

And noticed a lemur mom with a kid.
078

That's my best picture of the Colobus. I have no idea who those people were and how they've got inside.
079

That was pretty much it. The zoo is not big, and most of its territory is taken by some old Swedish houses, not animals. Naturally, I went back to bears.
080

That was taken from the distance, so, the quality is not great; but the bear balancing on the side of the hammock had to be photographed.
081

On my way back I spotted this guy.
082

And this one just ran past me, so, I couldn't make a decent photo. There was no barrier between us whatsoever.
083

I walked in the city a little more, and noticed that signs at the crossing are sometimes different: one is of a man, another of a woman.
084

Maybe I've spent too much time watching lemurs, but this looks to me like a winged monkey, not an eagle it's supposed to be.
085

Another street sign — apparently, for a horse.
086

It's a nice place.
087

So, my plan for the evening was to visit the science museum. Apparently, there is a police museum nearby.
088

But the science museum was kinda disappointing. The best part was the hands-on experience, where visitors can see the applications of various scientific principles. We have something like this here, and our version is better.
089

The other part just displays various inventions.
090

On my way back I walked through the area with lots of embassies of various countries. This, of course, is the nicest:
091

I'm not sure if it's a gargoyle or a bulldog, but it looks very serious.
092

And then I found what is, apparently, a pedestrian tunnel.
093

It's fairly long, and some parts of it look a bit strange.
094

To be continued...
migmit: (Default)
The next day started with, of course, breakfast. Breakfast was accompanied by some night birds.
016

I've decided to visit Drottningholm (yes, I looked up the correct spelling). There is a boat going back and forth; two boats, to be correct. So, I went to board the first one. On the way I've noticed a burglar running.
017

I think somebody was a bit annoyed our boat was moving past.
018

We've met the second boat, which was going back. I would later board it as well to return to Stockholm.
019

This is the Drottningholm palace.
020

The weather wasn't quite good, but I still went to the park first, saving the palace for later.
021

I was right. The park proved to be charming.
022

There is a so-called "Chinese pavillion" in the park.
023

It's not very exciting on the inside. Well, neither is it on the outside.
024

Although one particularly dark corner of it is somewhat amusing.
025

Strangely, the park was almost completely empty.
026

I'm sure that if I lived nearby, I would be visiting every day.
027

Probably won't make selfies every day though.
028

Then I went to the palace.
029

It was also guarded by some kittens.
030

The palace was the opposite to the park — crowded, but boring.
031

Well, there were some kittens inside too.
032

I've decided to visit the theater near the palace last. As I had some time, I walked a bit more around the buildings.
033

And found some more wildlife, that seems to think it's their home. They are probably correct.
034

The scenery is just gorgeous.
035

I don't think it can every stop being new and exciting.
036

Despite being close to civilized areas.
037

The theater is also guarded by kittens.
038

People are only allowed inside the theater in groups, following a guide.
039

Inside the theater there is a lot of painted wood. According to the guide, the royal family didn't have enough money to buy some real marble.
040

And after the theater I went back to Stockholm. On the way we, of course, met the first boat, making another trip to Drottningholm.
041

I didn't notice it at first, but there is some weird thing under the bridge here. It's not connected to the shore.
042

Almost back.
043

I didn't go to the hotel immediately, but walked around a little more. Yes, there is an owl.
044

Another body of water. They are really everywhere in Stockholm.
045

Just an interesting entrance.
046

Children's playground.
047

Another part of the playground; instead of pushing the ground, the kids can pretend they are riding a bicycle.
048

No idea what's that supposed to be.
049

Just to give some idea about how non-flat is the city.
050

To be continued...
migmit: (Default)
So, recently I've spent a few days in Stockholm, as part of my vacation.

I arrived on Monday.
001

I've checked into my hotel, and was mildly surprised by an elevator door looking like it can withstand an atomic blast.
002

However, the inside is a pretty normal elevator.
003

After that I went for a walk. Apparently, the nearest street was pedestrian-only, guarded by kittens. Big kittens.
004

The street was fairly crowded.
005

I walked further, and stumbled into a street beggar, who, as I learned later, is some kind of a celebrity here.
006

I didn't know much about Stockholm. In particular, I had no idea there is so much water in and around it.
007

I've surprised myself by bying a new jacket there. Wasn't planning on it, but it somehow attracted my attention.
008

Despite not being very flat, the city swarms with cyclists.
009

Local wildlife was fairly indifferent.
010

I'm still not sure if that bus goes all the way to the capital of Bulgaria.
011

One rabbit is very surprised that the other went to sleep already.
012

Swedes are very law-abiding people.
013

A piece of modern art.
014

Nice taxi.
015

To be continued...

Rebooting

Jul. 22nd, 2018 11:03 pm
migmit: (Default)
Recently a "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" reboot was announced.

Which leads to one question: are you guys off your meds?

And yes, Buffy can't be played by a black actress. For one simple reason: Buffy can't be played by ANYONE at all, at least in the long run, except for Sarah Michelle Gellar. Who just happened not to be black.

Yes, Eliza Dushku did a good job in one episode, but everybody understood that it's a temporary arrangement, and SMG would be back soon. And Kristy Swanson was an abomination.

Point is: as much as I'd like the story NOT to be finished, it very much IS. It's done. It's over. Go home.
migmit: (Default)
My dislike for code generation (macros, templates, preprocessors, etc.) was always more on the abstract side. My main argument was that while functions are defined in terms of what they do when they are executed, macros (or other similar things) are defined in terns of what code they generate. And for me the code is a tool, not an end goal. I don't want to think about code when I'm writing code. I want to think of what should be done.

Recently, however, I realized there might be a good argument on the practical side. And, what's funny, it's pretty much the same argument as the one against dynamic typing. So, here it is.

Let's say, I have a certain structure. I mean, structure like in C: a collection of seemingly unrelated data of different types. For (a textbook) example: structure describing a student in the college database: it contains the student's ID number (integer), his name (string), his age (integer), the courses he's taking (array of course IDs) etc. At some point, while developing/maintaining the system, I decide I no longer need one of those parameters — say, age.

Now, in a statically-typed language I would normally remove this field from the structure. Then I would compile the program, and, if it compiles, I just know that this field was not used anywhere. If it was used, the compiler would show me an error message, from which I (assuming I have some experience) would be able to deduce where exactly this field is used. Then I would either remove this part (it could be insignificant, or circular: for example, when a new record is created, copying all the data from the old one, including age — sure, it uses this field, but it doesn't have to), or conclude that I was wrong and some more thinking is required.

In a dynamically-typed language it's very different. True story: I've asked our front-end devs once to switch IDs used in the system from integers to strings (because sometimes they don't fit into Javascript' numeric type). They agreed that it should be done. It was half a year ago. It's not done yet. In fact, it's such a daunting task, that they can't allocate enough resources to do it without bringing everything else to a halt.

And then we have our code generation stuff. And suddenly the problem is here again. For example, if there is something like val MyStructureFormat = Json.format[MyStructure], then, after I remove some field from MyStructure, it would just regenerate the JSON reader and writer. Without telling me. And now I've lost control over it. My program compiles — but it's output have been altered in such a way that some other program might have troubles working with it. And I have no clue it could happen at all.

Now, this does not apply to macros only. In fact, there are lots of other things that make code unrefactorable. Implicits in Scala, class instances and derivations in Haskell. The latter is partially mitigated by several factors:

1) Standard Show and Read classes are strongly recommended to be used for debugging only.
2) Functor class (which is derivable with a certain Haskell extension) can have only ONE instance, at least if we want it to conform to the laws; so, at least automatically generated `map` function is probably the same we would write by hand.
3) Eq has more than one implementation, but usually only a single sensible one.
4) Not exporting constructors is usually advised, so at least automatic derivation based on the structure's internals is limited to a single file.

Still, it's a problem. It's not why I dislike code generation — at least not the main reason — but it might be why you do.

Faking

Jun. 1st, 2018 08:41 pm
migmit: (Default)
Just getting my opinion out there.

I'm not a cop, not an investigator, and it's quite possible I don't know how it works in real life. But in fiction, it's a pretty standard procedure — when somebody arranges for someone else to be murdered, pretend briefly that the victim is actually dead — usually with that victim cooperation, — so that the villain makes his next move, and thus provides evidence against himself. And it's always — ALWAYS — treated as a smart move. Despite the fact that somebody actually grieved, when s/he had no real reason.

For example, in "Peril at End House", Poirot orchestrates such a thing, with the help of Nick, the victim (although there is a nice twist that I'm not going to reveal). Or, in the first season of "24", it's presidential candidate who pulls this off; this time it's not to collect more evidence against the bad guy, but to prevent him from repeating his attempt. And each time it did hurt some feelings — in the second example, probably half the country was really upset. But it's still a smart move.

So, I don't understand why absolutely same stunt pulled in real life by Arkady Babchenko and Security Service of Ukraine is treated differently. Yes, they fooled the media into thinking Babchenko was dead. For ONE DAY! The next day, Babchenko, very much alive, was presented at the press conference. Case closed. Operation was, apparently, a success. The deception was not maintained any longer than it was absolutely necessary. So, why are there accusations of dishonesty flying around? Where is the anger — against both the victim and the law enforcement — coming from? What's wrong with setting a trap and catching the bad guys?

I don't understand.
migmit: (Default)
Что-то меня пробило.

Который раз вижу, во всяких околоиммигрантских блогах, такую историю. Какой-нибудь крымчанин чрезвычайно радуется тому, что, дескать, крымнаш и всё такое, и что ему дали паспорт эрэфии. Затем выясняется, что некие привилегии он получал всё-таки как обладатель украинского паспорта. В конце рассказчик задаёт риторический вопрос «что ж ты, такой патриот расеюшки, пользуешься документами ненавистной тебе країни?»

А я читаю всё это — и в упор не понимаю: а в чём, собственно, проблема? Нет, этих ватников во многом можно упрекнуть; но тут-то в чём дело? Паспорт — это всего-навсего бумажка. Если, допустим, в совковое время у меня был бы в одном кармане билет на трамвай, а в другом — талон на полкило гречки, то в магазине я предъявил бы всё-таки талон на гречку. Даже несмотря на то, что этот талон мне выдали в профсоюзе, в котором кто ни работает — все христопродавцы. Просто потому, что из магазина я хочу уйти с пачкой гречки, а не со следом пыльного сапога на брюках.

И то же самое относится к паспортам. Есть бумажка, которая даёт определённые привилегии — пользуйся. Другой вопрос, если есть две бумажки, дающие одинаковые привилегии. Скажем, паспорт эрэфии и паспорт Украины оба позволяют въехать в какую-нибудь третью страну без визы. Тут да — выходят на первый план другие соображения. Хочу, дескать, чтобы меня считали русским — показываю русский паспорт. Всё понятно. Но если годится только одна бумажка — почему ею не воспользоваться? Если она, опять-таки, есть.

Сюда же — вопрос об отказе от гражданства. Я вот, например, не собираюсь отказываться от гражданства эрэфии, когда (если) получу какое-либо иное. Просто потому что это куча хлопот ради эфемерного результата, который всё равно могут отменить, если захотят, не спрашивая моего мнения и даже не ставя меня в известность. Но опять же, есть куча любителей задавать риторические вопросы — «а если придут русские солдаты, ты так и пойдёшь в лагерь/под расстрел, или всё-таки снизойдёшь до того, чтобы показать им свой старый паспорт?»

Во-первых, не придут. Они уже пытались пробиться через Украину, причём в то время, когда на Украине в целом и в украинской армии в частности был полнейший бардак, по собственным признаниям украинцев. Результаты не впечатляют.

Во-вторых, да, показал бы. И не вижу в этом вообще ничего плохого. Опять-таки: если есть бумажка, которая даёт определённые привилегии — почему не воспользоваться? Но нет: если ты не готов умереть во имя своей новой родины (при этом, заметим, не принеся никакой пользы ни себе, ни другим, ни даже этой самой родине) — значит, ты, типа, унтерменш и вообще национал-предатель, во.

Откуда это идиотское придыхательное отношение к паспортам и гражданствам? Это всего лишь бюрократические бумажки, обладание которыми может иногда помочь.

Да, я в курсе, что обладание гражданством эрэфии может и помешать тоже; но только если оказаться на её территории. И тут как в анекдоте — «ну, этого я не допущу».

migmit: (Default)
Я в детстве был уверен, что Герман Титов (один из первых космонавтов) и Александр Пушкин (правда надо объяснять?) не только жили в одно время, но и были друзьями.

И, чтоб два раза не вставать: в Библии много ерунды написано, но один принцип я глубоко уважаю и ценю. А именно: «Блажен муж, иже не иде на совет нечестивых, и на пути грешных не ста, и на седалище губителей не седе» (цитирую по памяти, лень в первоисточник лезть). В общем, выборы, выборы...

Googling

Jan. 15th, 2018 09:03 pm
migmit: (Default)
Hey, Google! I know you're reading this. So, here is the thing I wanted to tell you.

Stop. Protecting. Me.

Yes, you've read right. Just stop. I'm sick of not being able to fetch my email from an airport wifi. I'm sick of your "suspicious connection attempts" and so on. Can you just assume that EVERY time somebody logs in with my password IT'S ME!

No, I'm NOT going to use 2-step verification. I do use web interface as well as a client app. Entering those digital passwords is VERY annoying. Just no.

Yes, I understand your concern. But it's MY mail, and what matters is what I am concerned about.

No, there is NO additional risk. If somebody stole my password, he can just use web interface.

Anyway. Stop. Do not argue; just bloody STOP.

Related question (Google, you can stop reading now; yes, I know you won't): what other email services one can use? Requirements:
1) web interface
2) ability to use with a desktop and mobile Apple Mail (regular IMAP/POP3 should work)
3) negligible downtime
4) non-paranoid security
5) no relation to Russia
migmit: (Default)
5 ноября 1612 года поляков выгнали из Кремля.
В честь этого события 4 ноября объявлено праздником.
Поэтому сегодня, 6 ноября, в эрэфии выходной.
Но всё это — вместо неудобного советского праздника 7 ноября, который годовщина революции.
Октябрьской.

И вот всё у них так.

Blading

Oct. 7th, 2017 06:32 pm
migmit: (Default)
So, I did finally watch the “Blade Runner”. Not the new one. The original, by Ridley Scott. Well, not original original; I watched the thing called “director's cut”. There are, apparently, five different versions of that movie — which is the first sign that something is off.

I didn't like it. I consider this time mostly wasted. Now I'll try to tell why.

Spoiler alert: I'm not going to shy away from revealing everything that happened in the movie. Not a lot did, but still.

So, about the most important elements, as usual. Story — and characters.

Story starts with the main protagonist, Rick Deckard, played by Harrison Ford, being pulled out of retirement. Apparently, there is a big threat — several androids (called “replicants” in the movie) are on Earth, and that's... bad? The movie establishes the rules before it even starts, in a “galaxy far away”-style. Yes, it simply gives us a couple of screens of text to read. This text informs us that androids are considered a VERY BAD THING, for some reason.

We are told by the police chief that Deckard is the best “blade runner”, which is, as the same text informed us, a slang term for “android killer”. We are also told that the main android — Batty — is the best of it's kind, better than any human, a “prodigal son” of some kind. We are told — by himself — that he saw things that humans can't even believe. And here is a thing: NONE of those things are in any way substantiated by what is shown on screen.

Let's talk about Deckard for a moment. There are several ways in which a cop can be better than others, overall or in some specific area. He could be — and that's the least interesting option — a martial arts expert, or a terrific marksman. He could be very logical, easily spotting tiny nuances in witnesses' stories or evidence. He could be very compassionate, able to connect with victims and get more information from them than they thought possible themselves. He could be very intuitive, jumping to conclusions no one of his collegues could even dream of. He could be very good at reflection, getting under criminal's skin. He could have a lot of determination, following the smallest threads to the end and refusing to admit defeat. What is Deckard?

That's right; we don't know anything about him in the beginning, and we don't know much more after the end. We are just told that “he is the best”. Well, we learn that he is not great when it comes to fighting. But that's it. He even comes off as somewhat stupid — he is shown the pictures of the androids, and, when he sees one of them pretending to be a mannequin, he comes closer and practically peeks into her eyes, instead of drawing his gun and shooting her. Well, he shares that stupidity with the rest of the police, I'll give him that: they make a suspect go through the test that is supposed to make androids reveal themselves — despite that suspect looking exactly like the photograph of the android they have.

Only once do we see Deckard following a lead — well, actually, two leads, but he follows them in the same direction. And, frankly, that's what we would expect from any cop or a PI — he finds something that clearly doesn't belong, wonders what it is, and then follows where it takes him.

Speaking of which — what is Deckard? It appears that he is a cop. He does use some priviliges of one, for example, parking where normal people aren't allowed to. But when he needs to know what some strange piece of evidence is, he goes to a shady store, hoping that the owner would know. A cop would likely turn it to the lab, to some guy in a white coat.

Turning to the androids, we are told that they are very dangerous, but what do we actually see? All androids, in turn, attack Deckard. They do not do anything worse than a regular criminal on a run would do to a pursuing cop. Hell, there is nothing worse than a COP would do to a threatening criminal. We also see the android leader, played by Rutger Hauer, murdering two people; first — a certifiable douchebag against whom this android holds a completely justifiable grudge, and second — a creepy guy who is, unfortunately to him, a witness of the first murder. Now, is that bad? Certainly. Is it so bad that you need the best of the best, the elite “blade runner”, to track down this murderer? Not really.

By the way, who calls the elite police squad “blade runners”? If anything, it gives an impression of someone so reckless that he will fall any second now. Oh well.

The point is, we don't see anything that confirms what we were told. We are just supposed to believe without any proof that Deckard is the best cop, that Hauer's character is the “prodigal son”, that he has “seen thing” that nobody would believe, that androids are extremely bad news... but it's all just words.

There is another substory, almost unconnected to the main one, of Deckard relationship with a female android, Rachael. Here is how one of the main scenes goes:

Woman opens the door to leave.
Big man slams his fist into the door, forcing it to close.
Woman steps back and keeps going backwards until her back is against the wall.
Big man approaches her, blocking every way for her to escape.
He says “Say ‘kiss me’”.
She does.
He does.
He says “Say ‘I want you’”.
She does it, unconvincingly.
He says “Say it like you mean it”.
She says it again, doing a somewhat better job.
Ridley Scott's voiceover says “He is not raping her, he is forcing her to acknowledge her feelings for him”.

Sorry, that last bit was my imagination.

And then there is the final confrontation between Deckard and the big bad. During which the big bad strips to his underwear, somehow gets a bird in his hand, and then drops dead, because androids come with an expiration date. Really? You guys spent nearly two hours trying to build the tension — not quite successfully — and than the bad guy just dies on his own?

I've seen a lot of praise for the questions this movie asks. Copying verbatim from another, very positive, review: “Who are we? What makes us human? What does AI mean for our identity?”

Weirdly, the review I copied this from calls it “story”. It's not a story. It's a questionnaire. That nobody bothered to go through.

Look, I'm OK with asking questions. But if you want my interest, try to do some research. Explore those questions. It's fine if the research is inconclusive. But it should be. Make an effort. You can't just ask a question and then ignore it. I can do the same with ease: “What if you boss is a vampire feeding on your frustration when your work gets too hard?” That might be a valid concern.

At some point Rachael asks Deckard if he has taken the test himself — that is, if he is certain he is human. Which might have been a good opportunity to explore. If only Deckard didn't choose exactly this moment to take a quick nap. No, really; he passed out for about five minutes, and the question — quite an interesting one — was completely forgotten after that.

I've seen statements that “Blade Runner” is simply the best sci-fi movie ever. But I struggle to understand how is it possible for anyone to even like it. In total, it's a bland, unimaginative story with stick figures instead of characters and dialogs from a teenager written fanfic.
migmit: (Default)
Сколько можно уже портить хорошую вещь?
migmit: (Default)
У нас тут завтра... то есть, уже сегодня, намечается некая движуха, которая в русском языке называется «гей-парад».

По такому случаю в нашей конторе кинули клич, и несколько волонтёров, общим числом четыре, включая вашего покорного слугу, часа полтора занимались тем, за что их в эрэфии посадили бы. А именно, ввинчивали цветные лампочки в люстры на потолке и заклеивали окна тонкой бумагой. Только те, правда, которые выходят на главную улицу. Охраннику же было дано задание проследить, чтобы в тёмное время суток все люстры были бы включены.

Получилось... о-о-о, смотрите сами:


С другого ракурса:


По-моему, здорово смотрится.
migmit: (Default)
На Украине решили запретить несколько соцсетей.

Это первое решение президента Порошенко, которое я могу назвать, только и исключительно, отвратительным.
migmit: (Default)
Сначала небходимое вступление. У меня лично практически нет сомнений в том, кто организовал взрывы в СПб. Ну, то есть, не конкретный Сурков-Володин-етц, но где работали организаторы — понятно. Не бывает таких совпадений, чтобы первый за несколько лет массовый протест — и через неделю первый за несколько лет теракт.

Но почему-то куча народу упирает на эту идиотскую историю с двумя взрывами. Как это выглядело отсюда:
— Приходит сообщение о двух взрывах, на Техноложке и на Сенной.
— Затем появляется уточнение: взрыв один, в поезде, ехавшем с Сенной на Технологический.
— Затем ещё одно: взрыв произошёл, когда поезд уже был на Технологическом.
— И, наконец, сообщают, что на Восстания найдена ещё одна бомба, не сработавшая по тем или иным причинам (показания расходятся).

Неужели кому-то не очевидно, что между несуществующей бомбой на Сенной и реальной, но не сработавшей, бомбой на Восстания нет прямой связи? То есть, понятно, что теракт один, но чего кричать «как они знали о второй бомбе до того, как её обнаружили?» Это же совершенно очевидно, что те, кто сообщали — НЕ ЗНАЛИ!

Сначала местным условным пожарным позвонила какая-нибудь условная дежурная по станции, и, в истерике (абсолютно естественной), стала кричать, что в поезде с Сенной на Технологический взорвалась бомба. Пожарные не всё поняли (что тоже абсолютно естественно), и, на всякий случай, выехали и туда, и туда. От случившегося рядом журналиста обе группы отмахнулись — не до тебя, бомба тут взорвалась. Журналист схватил телефон и сообщил в редакцию — выехали две группы, на Техноложку и на Сенную, обе говорят, что из-за взрыва бомбы. Редакция тут же тиснула статью, что на Техноложке и на Сенной взорвались две бомбы.

Всё это время бомба на Восстания лежала себе спокойненько, и о ней знали те, кому по службе полагается, и больше никто. Затем так или иначе, но её обнаружили. Всё. То, что сначала сообщали о двух взрывах — идиотское совпадение и совершенно нормальная в подобных обстоятельствах путаница. Такие совпадения как раз бывают, и часто.
migmit: (Default)
Закидоны ЖЖ мне надоели. В ближайшее время я остановлю кросспост из DreamWidth и закрою блог migmit.livejournal.com. Ежели кому интересно — продолжайте читать на DW.

Q: Можно ли добавить блог на DreamWidth во френдленту LJ?
A: Понятия не имею, я никогда не пользовался френдлентой, ни в LJ, ни на DW. Предпочитаю RSS/Atom.
migmit: (Default)
То ли [livejournal.com profile] avmalgin-а хакнули, то ли он головой поехал.



Не помню, чтобы он раньше а) переходил на личности и б) выпячивал национальность собеседника. Вишенкой на торте, конечно, то, что он ещё и национальность определил неправильно.
migmit: (Default)
A lot of people, myself included, decided to move to DreamWidth after Livejournal servers were moved to Oroszország. However, we still read other people's journals, and sometimes even comment on them. Livejournal claims that it's possible to comment with a DW account, using OpenID; however, it's support for OpenID is broken. Fortunately, there are some tricks that make it work.

When one tries to login to LJ via OpenID, using http://[whatever].dreamwidth.org as an OpenID URL, it results in a blank page with a long and complicated URL looking like "http://www.dreamwidth.org/openid/server?openid.mode=checkid_setup&..." — it's really long. To make it go further, one needs to find the part of the URL that looks like "openid.trust_root=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.livejournal.com" and replace "http" part of it with "https". That would redirect to Livejournal, and everything would be just fine.

Bonus track: Livejournal does not even try to fool users into believing they can use OpenID on mobile; this option simply isn't there. But, using the same URL, transferring it from the desktop to the mobile in any reasonable way, would allow one to log into Livejournal on mobile as well.

Disclaimer: Livejournal developers are quite active when it comes to breaking good things, so, I'm not sure it will work when you try it.