No, even if you only had one unit for a physical quantity, you would still need to specify that unit to know which physical quantity you are describing. E.g. "That object over there is 15" vs "That object over there is 15 kg".
The symbol for temperature, measured in Celsius, is "°C". It's atomic and can't be separated, since that would result in °, which represents the angle of something, not the temperature, and C, which is the symbol for Coulomb, which measures electric charge.
That's why these systems should never be used as the sole decision makers, but instead work as a tool to help the professionals make better decisions.
Keep the human in the loop!
I would use single x and y when they are meant to replace numbers, and multiple xx and yy when replacing text.
E.g.
While there might be some truth to that, I don't think MS 365 would qualify as "developed for the government."
I imagine that the company would have the burden of proof that any of these criteria are fulfilled.
Third-party rights most likely refers to the use of third-party libraries, where the source code for those isn't open source, and therefore can't be disclosed, since they aren't part of the government contract. Security concerns are probably things along the line of "Making this code open source would disclose classified information about our military capabilities" and such.
Switzerland are very good bureaucracy and I trust that they know how to make policies that actually stick.
As long as it's maintained. Wrong documentation can often be worse than no documentation.
I was making that reference
moo*
Comment should describe "why?", not "how?", or "what?", and only when the "why?" is not intuitive.
The problem with comments arise when you update the code but not the comments. This leads to incorrect comments, which might do more harm than no comments at all.
E.g. Good comment: "This workaround is due to a bug in xyz"
Bad comment: "Set variable x to value y"
Note: this only concerns code comments, docstrings are still a good idea, as long as they are maintained
Example: https://www.rt.com/pop-culture/600410-germany-gelsenkirchen-renamed-taylor-swift/
Except for the final paragraph, it is very non-political, and easily verifiable to be true.
I want to be clear that I do not condone or support using these types of sources, since it funds non-democratic governments, but simply dismissing all of their stories as "fake news" without any further critical thinking or fact checking is not correct.
In what way is it not covered, according to you?
If the news story is, e.g., non-political, does not try to influence your opinion on something, and is based on first-party facts that can be independently verified and that are correctly represented, the source does not matter for the factuality of the news story, even if it is from a non-democratic source.
I disagree, and would argue that both are about equally frequent. For example, my phone shows °C in the weather widget, while the weather app only uses °. That does not change the fact that the actual unit is °C, and that would not change even if the whole world switched away from °F, and your original comment about the display having °C implying that °F still exists is therefore incorrect.