Lucky you! I tried learning with examples generated by ChatGPT and none of them worked at all. I then learned the basics of the API by reading this excellent tutorial: https://osm-queries.ldodds.com/tutorial/, and realised that, in hindsight, ChatGPT's answers weren't even close to being correct.
I don't know if you went to a French-speaking school in Belgium, but I was told the same thing in a French school. The French "continent" certainly refers to a large mass of land and its surrounding islands [1]. Hence, the continent is Oceania rather than Australia.
That's how we learned it in middle school and beyond here in the US, but the Australia question boiled down to "yeah, technically it's an island, but are you really going to start your conversations about Australia with a bunch of quibbling around islands v. continents?".
40 years ago in Spain 5 continents only, no Antarctica, my guess is as no one was living there why worry about it. Don't know if it has changed, I'll ask my son.
North and South America are on different tectonic plates, while Europe and most of Asia are on a single plate. If anything, the geological definition of continents seems to support separate Americas and a unified Eurasia.
The best argument for separating the Americas is probably the existence of the Darien Gap. I’m not sure there is more inhospitable route in a populated area anywhere in the world.
The continents are defined geographically and culturally, not geologically.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent points out how they "are generally identified by convention rather than any strict criteria" and lists "several ways of distinguishing the continents", with the 7-continent model, two different 6-continent models. It also mentions the "four-continent model consisting of Afro-Eurasia, America, Antarctica, and Australia", as well as how there were only three discrete landmasses present during the Pleistocene ice ages, when the Bering Strait was instead land.
You can see the cultural influence in:
> In the English-speaking countries, geographers often use the term Oceania to denote a geographical region which includes most of the island countries and territories in the Pacific Ocean, as well as the continent of Australia.
> In some non-English-speaking countries, such as China, Poland, and Russia, Oceania is considered a proper continent because their equivalent word for "continent" has a rather different meaning which can be interpreted as "a major division of land including islands" (leaning towards a region) rather than "land associated with a large landmass" (leaning towards a landmass).
They are not defined by geology nor continental plates. For one, the word and current use is far older than our first glimmers of understanding plate tectonics. https://www.etymonline.com/word/continent says the meaning in the 1550s was "continuous tract of land" and by the 1610s became "one of the large land masses of the globe".
Nothing to worry about except network access, of course, which was the issue in this case. Much better to have it not with ZFS support already enabled.
Indeed (I guess you meant "much better to have it with ZFS support already enabled"). I simply mentioned this for people unaware of the existence of this script who don't have network issues with the Arch ISOs.
This is ridiculous. If anything, California tends to be liberal - nothing to do with Socialism (let alone Communism). What does being a "woke" State (whatever that means) have to do with Socialism?
California has very little in common with Nordic social-democracy. Even when looked at relatively to the rest of the US. And this is particularly true when one looks at the subject at hand, which is social safety nets. The "relative" approach has its limits.
Sorry if I gave the wrong impression, that wasn’t my opinion, I was referring to how some other parts of the US perceive California.
You’re right it makes no sense but I think it’s undeniable California is used as an example of failed policies around social welfare and taxation by, say, Texas and Florida politicians.
There's no high horse. Your message doesn't answer the argument. The fact (A) that one wouldn't buy music if Spotify weren't available is not related to (B) not caring about how Spotify treats artists.
Even if A is true, it doesn't imply that one has no empathy for artists.
I think you missed the OP's point. This is precisely not about "being useful to you" or "useless to someone else". The point is that not everything has to be useful, and that it is ridiculous to have to have to find some economic (in the broad, neoliberal sense) incentive to do this or that. Just do things for the sake of doing them (or not doing them), not as part of a strategy.
It is a universally accepted fact that physical exercise is good for you, and a lot of people enjoy it. If you don't exercise, it's either because you don't have the time to do it or you can't be bothered (or a bit of both). If you do have the time, then just go for a walk and stop finding excuses not to. I'd rather see people not go for a walk because they can't be bothered than convince them to do it because it'll make them more productive, better adapted to the job market, improve their "human capital", or whatever ridiculous reason "life hackers" come up with.
This is mostly very silly and is not backed by facts.
1. On "pedophilia in Algeria":
a. You are probably referring to the rumors started by Guy Sorman which mention crimes allegedly taking place in Tunisia, where he lived and taught, rather than Algeria.
b. As described in a report (in French) published in the Obs[1], Foucault was under strict police surveillance when he lived in Tunisia, because of his political activities. The State was desperate to find a reason to convict him. One would think that allegations of rape and pedophilia wouldn't have gone unnoticed.
Moreover, Sorman himself admitted that his allegations were not founded[2].
c. Even if these allegations were true (which they don't seem to be), I failed to see what they would have to do with the argument you are answering to. This would make him a criminal and a despicable person; it would not imply that nothing he wrote was philosophically and historically pertinent.
2. On the age of consent laws in France: your argument is simply dishonest. At the time, the age of consent for heterosexual relations was 15 (and it still is), whereas homosexual relations were forbidden until the age of 18, which was (rightfully) seen as discriminatory. However, some of the people involved in that movement were indeed despicable.
3. "most of his books are extremely anti-historical" That makes absolutely no sense. What does "anti-historical" mean?
a. "filled with literal falsehoods". This is a gross overstatement. The accuracy of some facts described in some of Foucault's books have indeed been disputed, it doesn't make them "filled with falsehoods".
b. "anti-scientific": that's ironic, because, for reasons that I cannot explain in much detail here (do study Foucault and make your own opinion about his work rather that believe what random strangers say on the Internet), it is, to some extent, precisely the point (but it is dealt with in a much more complex manner than what your comment leads one to think).
Think whatever you want about Foucault and his work, but please do your homework and don't spread ridiculous rumors and over-simplifications.
