wouldn't a concurrent change without synchronization be UB anyway? Also parent wants to cache the address, not the value (but you have to cache the value if you want to optimize manually)
I don't understand what are you saying. The journalist published an article claiming that a missile struck without being intercepted (although with no damage). The gamblers wanted the journalist to retract and say that the missile was intercepted.
Are you saying that the gamblers were actually the censors or that the reality was that the missile was indeed intercepted and somehow the censors forced the journalist to say it wasn't?
If the rules used to compute the index change (as opposed to the index composition of course), are index funds obliged to follow them no matter what? I assume this is very fund dependent, but would be interesting to know what most guarantee.
Trying not to spoil a 40+ year old story, but Asimov eventually retconned that the flourishing of humanity was driven by a benevolent AI behind the curtain.
The interesting thing here is less about what people aspire to, and more about the lack of imagination and thought when considering the world they want to create.
It would be funny if the sleepwalkers weren't trying so hard to drag humanity along.
It is quite independent in Italy actually. The government is pushing for a constitutional amendment to help "fix" this feature. There is going to be a referendum on the change very soon.
Ask any Romanian and they'll tell you they're not. Ask them about the Mario Iorgulescu case [1], with the Italian justice system refusing to extradite him here to Romania only because his (wealthy) dad paid the right people off. And Iorgulescu is not the only such case.
the current reform is complicated, and reasonable people can disagree on how to vote, but it goes a bit further than separating prosecutors from judges.
Namely, it also changes the self-regulating body (the CSM, Consiglio Superiore della Magistratura) of the judiciary so that the government and parliament have a bit more authority and the judiciary have a bit less: the organ is split in two, its judiciary members are no longer elected but picked randomly while a part is decided by the political side, and there's an even higher special tribunal.
Proponents say this is necessary, opponents say this is leading towards stronger power of the political majority over the judiciary.
Now, roughly one third of CSM members is nominated by the Parliament and the other one is elected by judges, according to the "correnti" (a sort of parties)
> The government is pushing for a constitutional amendment to help "fix" this feature. There is going to be a referendum on the change very soon.
Italian here.
It's not like that: the referendum is about definitely enforcing the career separation about public persecutor and judges.
Actually they are under the same authority and the member of this authority are elected according to a sort of political parties (unique case in the whole EU) and this creates some distortions in career growths and nominations.
The new schema will create two different authorities and the members will be selected according to a ballot.
A similar proposal was made by the left wing parties few years ago, when they were at the government
reply