Generally, the order of magnitude of a number is the smallest power of 10 used to represent that number.[2] To work out the order of magnitude of a number N, the number is first expressed in the following form:
N = a × 10^b
where 1/sqrt(10) ≤ a < sqrt(10) . Then, b represents the order of magnitude of the number.
RF completely achieved its objectives in Ukraine, Georgia and Syria, without putting a "we have won" show.
Sure, there are sanctions, because Russia actually annexed Crimea.
Russia knows very well that teritory grabbing in itself is pointless in the 21th century, Russia grabbed enough territory to nullify any chance Ukraine or Georgia will join NATO.
Don't get me wrong, as an eastern european, I hate what Russia stands for, but militarily and geostrategiclly, they know very well what they are doing, because they cannot aford not to, unlike the USA.
I use it for a couple reasons: one, it is installed as a base app on almost every single *nix implementation on the planet, so you can count on having it even on ancient or restrictive environments (which I work in frequently); Two, awk is frequently fast enough for most needs, and generally far faster than a number of off the shelf "modern" tools. The first reason is the one that generally leads me to its use, its ubiquity and power make it a compelling tool.
I use Perl similarly to awk if I need to use regex rather than white space delimited fields.
I think if you know Perl really well and can remember the command line arguments - particularly -E, -n, -I and -p - then it’s a good swap in substitute for grep, sed, awk, cut, bash, etc when whatever 5 min task you’re working on gets a tiny bit more complex.
Similarly a decent version perl 5 seems to be installed everywhere by default.
I’m curious to know if anyone would say the same about python or any other programs? I’m not particularly strong in short python scripting.
I would say Perl’s native support for regular expressions makes it more useful on the CLI than Python, but Python is also very low on my preferred languages list.
I do, however, use it for JSON pretty printing in a pipeline: python -mjson.tool IIRC.
Skip learning of sed and awk and jump straight to perl instead.
$ perl --help
...
-F/pattern/ split() pattern for -a switch (//'s are optional)
-l[octal] enable line ending processing, specifies line terminator
-a autosplit mode with -n or -p (splits $_ into @F)
-n assume "while (<>) { ... }" loop around program
-p assume loop like -n but print line also, like sed
-e program one line of program (several -e's allowed, omit programfile)
Because syntatically as a language/tool it is super easy to remember. Writing one liners with awk feels more intuitive to me.
Awk example:
ls -l | awk '{print $9, $5}' or
ls -lh | awk '{print $9, $5}'
Seems a whole lot simpler. To me. I find if you have to write exhaustive shell scripts then maybe you can look for something more verbose like Perl, I guess.
If you mean the lack of quotations, then the behavior is well-defined and is presumably what was intended. Per POSIX,
> The print statement shall write the value of each expression argument onto the indicated output stream separated by the current output field separator (see variable OFS above), and terminated by the output record separator (see variable ORS above).
The default value for OFS is <space> and for ORS, <newline>.
In my defense I did this fairly quickly (Which was the point.) and was not trying to illustrate proper syntax (I mean it does run and does produces an output.).
ls -l | awk '{print $9 "\t" $5}'
That is about as much as i'm willing to do for this.
True, but it's still a slippery slope. Can't wait for the day where the decision of who to shoot is outsourced to call centre-like environments in India where people will be paid peanuts to decide who lives and dies. /s
We can ban anything we want but countries still make them and force the hands of others to counter it. How many hundreds of thousands of tons of chemical weapons still exist?
Just making the illegal more illegal does nothing but mollify a few here and there but certainly lets politicians grand stand as if they accomplished something.
Weapons of war deserve no mercy, since these robots will exist then the only logical solution is design systems to take them down. Weapon systems can certain be designed to take down anything mechanical and ignore people. If anything depriving the petty war mongers out there of their weapons to use against people might be the only worthwhile outcome of this technology.
They only way to get rid of mines is to make them useless. Robots can make them useless, because they can spot and disarm or label mines automatically, or just step on them.
If it weren't true, people would be jumping in with counterexamples all over the place and we'd never hear the end of it.
If you know of a counterexample, you should state what it is so readers can make up their own minds. Also, it's possible that we made a mistake, in which case a link would be helpful so we can correct it.
It's also possible that there were complicating factors. We've dealt with thousands of these cases. There's no easy formula for summing them all up. But the principles I just described here are certainly the ones we apply and the ones that we teach to moderators.
