Could be a Wisconsin resident away on a trip longer than intended, wants to check schedules before deciding to ask a friend to drag some of their bins to the kerb and back?
What's the benefit to WI in denying them access?
mjr
joined 5 months ago
Same. I've tried two, looking to upload transport and design videos. No answer, stuck after confirming email address.
Eventually, I'll set up a host and a donations account, but it's a faff I've not got time for right now.
Wear less, wear better, or ride gentler, unless you're one of the (unknown size) minority that can't ride on a cold day without sweating.
Can't park there, mate!
If you think you can bike in any weather, you haven't biked enough 😅. There's absolutely limits. Regardless, you don't need to carry a change of clothes when you use your car.
Yes, but conditions outside the limits for a bike are also generally unsafe to drive in. It's lovely to ride on studded tyres past a line of cars that have slid into a snowbank.
You don't need to carry a change of clothes on a bike often, but if you do, clothes are usually light and we have suit carriers, shirt shuttles and so on. Some of which are also used to carry a change of clothes in cars.
Some people, mostly anglophone, like to play spandex dress-up for cycling or sprint lots, but that's a choice, not a necessity.
Yes, and maybe one of them would like the depot or to run an extra service. That's what I'm saying. Eurostar hasn't been allowed to hog the Temple Mills train depot, so why should Eurotunnel hoard the Barking freight depot on the link to the state-owned LTS line? These depots are expensive to build and can only go in limited places, so they should use it, sell it, or lose it.
it had scrapped plans to reopen a freight terminal in Barking and to run a new direct freight service from Lille.
Fine, let another freight operator have them, then.
Meanwhile, their biggest shareholder is still building part of HS2. 🤷
No, but could you feed the website with mismatched tags through something like tidy first? That error looks like maybe it's expecting xhtml and getting html. Maybe the site is declaring one, then using the other. Lots of software won't care because it's a pretty common error, but some panics.
Thank for elaborating my comment, but I never said never, only that it's usually better to avoid it.
And yven if you think it's provably impossible to get an Error back now, someone or something may change an underlying function behaviour on you in the future and invalidate your proof. There are ways to limit that with version control and pinning and so on, but it's easy for an assumption to be overlooked when merging in new versions of things.
So yes, I agree, better to use ? at least here, but like all guidelines, there may be times where you break it, accepting the risks.
They used .unwrap(...) in production, which can escape notice until there's an error, then it panics. It's better to always handle the potential error, or at least use ? to pass the error back to the caller.
Sensible? They call it Danish-style, but the Danish Social Democrats reportedly just got their bottoms handed to them at the local elections ballot box, losing almost half their mayors and about a quarter of their councillors from the last local elections, with Copenhagen electing a non-Social-Democrat mayor for the first time since the post was created in 1938. Is that what Labour really wants to turn itself into?
I holidayed in a village in France and got around fine by a mix of bus, bike and train, and it looked ok to do that if you lived there and worked, but most of the locals still drove because there were occasional journeys where cars really helped and once you decide to sink €000s into a car, it's then cheap to use it for each extra journey instead of wait for a bus or train, or take time to pedal or walk a bit to stops.
So I think it could be possible even in villages, but some services will need making easier to reach without cars.
I certainly know plenty of places where local governments aren't even trying, of course.