I wonder how true this is, we have the same system in Sweden, that court judgement are not legally binding precedent for lower courts. But in practice lower courts will follow the rulings made by the high court.
It's the same in Spain, which makes OPs proposal kind of useless. The big distinction between a civil and a common law system is the fundamentals. A country's civil code is properly defined, while a common law's system is based on previous cases you have to dig through to find the basics.
I can highly recommend the radio documentary https://www.sverigesradio.se/avsnitt/vipeholmsanstalten-min-... it's horrifying (in Swedish of course but hopefully more understandable to a Dane than Danish [to my own detriment and sorrow] is to us Swedes).
And don’t worry - the secret is to just spend a few hours actually trying with native speakers, and ideally some beers, and suddenly it will click. It goes both ways, and only takes a tiny bit of practice in my experience. :-)
I like Rust and have an ambition to learn it as well (I've had a few false starts...). One of my issues that I have is that every (slight exaggeration) library that I seem to come across is still at version 0.x.y. Take this library as an example. 0.1.0 was released in 2014 and it still hasn't had a 1.0.0 release, is there an aversion to get to 1.0.0 in the rust community?
Serious answer: For some, they do change semi-often and don't feel compelled to declare stability. In other cases, it's a stable + widely used 0.x package, and bumping it to 1.0 usually implies _some_ kind of breaking change. (I don't know if that _should_ be the case, but I know that if I see a dependency has bumped from 0.x to 1.0 I'm going to be cautious and wait to update it until I have more time).
In general: People usually aren't too concerned about it.
This list's Zig as an entry, despite the Zig project having very clear plans[0] for a 1.0 release. That's not 0ver, it's just the beta stage of semver.
Yes, in rust, the package manager has built in rules about when to update a package. It won’t auto update a major version change because it implies a change that breaks something. As long as your package is safe to auto update you don’t want to change the major version number.
IIRC CIRA who is the delegated ccTLD manager of .ca is not a government entity (this is quite common in the ccTLD space actually, a lot of ccTLD are being managed by foundations or non-profits).
They're not, they're a (refreshingly transparent) non-profit -- but the government has the ability to reassign management of .ca to another organization as they wish.
I think RDAP is going to be adopted by more and more ccTLDs as well. WHOIS is not a particularly well liked protocol (I was at an IETF meeting where ICANN did a presentation on the timeline and people were literally cheering for the demise of WHOIS).
Some TLDs gives you open access to just query the DNS and do an AXFR (download the whole zone), for example the .se and .nu ccTLDs (which I happen to work for the foundation managing those): dig @zonedata.iis.se se AXFR > se.zone.txt
For the new gTLDs (.app, .dev, .xyz, etc, etc) there is the Centralized Zone Data Service provided by icann: https://czds.icann.org/home where you can request access to zones.
So there's the possibility of some .gov TLDs being missed, like secret CIA stuff. Or the guy that commented on here that he uses a custom .gov for his home servers.
And the TLD .gov doesn't exist except on the internet. Similarly if there's a .gov in some CIA intranet, does it exist or not exist? That's a metaphysical question
I have some insight into this domain (pun duly intended), I work for a foundation managing two ccTLDs. Once the ccTLD has been delegated to an entity it is very hard to get that back without the consent of all parties. Meaning unless the entity that now holds the delegation to manage the ccTLD agrees to sell it or give it back they generally won't lose it.
I know two people that spend some of their time writing COBOL for a major bank. They do find that part of the job pretty boring, it is basically just writing down SQL queries in a COBOL file and then trying to get passed their 50 year old development workflow (merge to master, then do testing in a testing environment, then get code review..).
Is it not the same in Spain at all?
reply