Superhuman media kerfuffle
-
@coderpatsy ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I did tag it Don't dead, open inside.
-
@remi said in Superhuman media kerfuffle:
@Steve_The_Cynic said in Superhuman media kerfuffle:
(1) AKA a strong reluctance to deal with telling the French bureaucracy about the changes they would have make to my naturalisation dossier. It's going well at the moment, and I'd like to not disturb it. They make it clear that any change to your job, your address, your kind of occupancy there (tenant / owner-occupier / whatever else), your "état civil"(2), blah blah blah must be transmitted to them so that they can update the dossier.
A friend of mine went through the process with his wife recently, and unfortunately you have little control on the process and it seems entirely random. Contacting them may make things slower, but they could equally well make them faster...
At one point they did not hear anything for a few months and when they asked for information they were told that the file had been "lost" and they had to start again from scratch. They strongly suspect that it's due to success rate metrics: the higher-ups say that a file should be dealt with in X months, but if it gets lost then it's like the file never existed so it doesn't get into the metrics. So in their case, the file was OK (after many back-and-forths) but stayed for too long in a stack (because the administration being woefully understaffed, in part as a clear political will to make things harder for immigrants, there is no way it can be properly dealt with in the allotted time), so it was "lost". They then made a new one that, having already been checked, jumped directly to the front of the queue and was dealt with in a couple of weeks, and voilà, the metrics are happy!
That rather reminded me of the episode when I was trying to get a Carte Vitale back in 2009. I submitted the documents, and a month or so later I checked up, and was told that the documents had become detached from the dossier. They forcefully denied that the documents had been lost even though they were no longer connected to the dossier and their location was unknown.
-
@Steve_The_Cynic On a similar note, my wife needed at one point what amounts to an administrative document, but that has to be delivered by a judge (for some complicated but not entirely illogical legal reasons). She sent her file, and after not hearing anything about it for almost a year, she gave them a call. She was then told that since her file had been sent less than 1 year ago, it's likely the enveloppe still had not even been opened (much less processed), given how thinly staffed the tribunals are (and of course that administrative thing was much lower priority than all the regular work of a judge)...
She got the document after almost 2 years, by which time the law that had required it in the first place had changed, and she no longer needed it.
-
@levicki said in Superhuman media kerfuffle:
@boomzilla said in Superhuman media kerfuffle:
Is there a GPO for enforcing code style? Asking for a friend.
Not sure about GPO but I hear there are Git pre-commit/pre-receive which can enforce coding standards for you by invoking clang-format.
StyleCop with 'violations are compile time errors' works better :)
-
@Steve_The_Cynic said in Superhuman media kerfuffle:
@wft said in Superhuman media kerfuffle:
@levicki said in Superhuman media kerfuffle:
@wft said in Superhuman media kerfuffle:
Read receipts on emails are evil
So you don't want to know if and when someone has read your mail?
If they have read it, they respond, that's how I know.
I think you have that backwards. What you probably meant was, "If they responded, then they have read it, that's how I know."
Not in my experience. Too often, I get replies that have nothing to do with the question I asked in my e-mail
-
@bjolling said in Superhuman media kerfuffle:
@Steve_The_Cynic said in Superhuman media kerfuffle:
@wft said in Superhuman media kerfuffle:
@levicki said in Superhuman media kerfuffle:
@wft said in Superhuman media kerfuffle:
Read receipts on emails are evil
So you don't want to know if and when someone has read your mail?
If they have read it, they respond, that's how I know.
I think you have that backwards. What you probably meant was, "If they responded, then they have read it, that's how I know."
Not in my experience. Too often, I get replies that have nothing to do with the question I asked in my e-mail
Have you tried turning it off and on again?
-
@Jaloopa said in Superhuman media kerfuffle:
@bjolling said in Superhuman media kerfuffle:
@Steve_The_Cynic said in Superhuman media kerfuffle:
@wft said in Superhuman media kerfuffle:
@levicki said in Superhuman media kerfuffle:
@wft said in Superhuman media kerfuffle:
Read receipts on emails are evil
So you don't want to know if and when someone has read your mail?
If they have read it, they respond, that's how I know.
I think you have that backwards. What you probably meant was, "If they responded, then they have read it, that's how I know."
Not in my experience. Too often, I get replies that have nothing to do with the question I asked in my e-mail
Have you tried turning it off and on again?
People.
What a bunch of bastards.
-
@levicki said in Superhuman media kerfuffle:
I wonder how do you use all those chat platforms where it says "wft is typing..." or "wft is sending a file..." on the recipient's side?
I use a 3rd party client that lets me turn this thing off.
-
@remi said in Superhuman media kerfuffle:
complicated but not entirely illogical legal reasons
Almost certainly false.
-
@HardwareGeek No, I really think that if you think as a lawyer (ok, here's my problem), it makes sense. Here is how it goes, as far as I remember it.
This is about nationality. There are several ways you can be French. One way is for the French government to grant you the French nationality (which is, I think, the way that @Steve_The_Cynic is using -- and the only way for foreigners who simply live in France). There are some minimum conditions (e.g. having lived in France for some time etc.) but ultimately this is a purely arbitrary decision from the government, they can grant or not grant you nationality and you can't contest their decision (you can apply again, and you can contest the process e.g. if they said you don't fulfil one condition but actually you do, but the final decision is entirely up to them). That part is fairly straightforward, although it is strewn with all the
that you can imagine from an administration, and that have been mentioned in various places up-thread or elsewhere.The other way (well, there may be yet others, but this is the other way that matters here) is to fall within the criteria for being French defined by law, and I'm stressing the operative word here. This is the case for most French, i.e. being born in France of French parents etc. This comes from article 18 of the Code Civil:
Est français l'enfant dont l'un des parents au moins est français.
[is French the child of which one of the parents at least is French]Now what happens when you are French because of one of those articles, but you need to prove it? Which body has the authority to say whether a law is correctly applied or not? Since it's a law, the only binding authority on that matter can only be a judge. An ID document (e.g. an ID card) does not prove that you legally have the nationality, only that the administration thinks you do. Hence, if you need to actually prove your nationality (and for some reason your ID card won't do, or maybe you don't have one), then a judge has to rule on the law.
You might argue that the administration should be able to rule for themselves whether you fulfil the condition of the articles of law (and therefore give you the required document), and in many cases they do, but if you happened to disagree with them, then again since it's a law, you have to get a judge to rule on that. And usually it's the administration itself asking you to prove your nationality, so they would hardly be impartial. And this is, in essence, what was the situation for my wife: she wanted some ID document but for historical reasons it was not 100% clear-cut that she fell under that (or another) article. So the administration, basically, looked at her sternly and told her to prove it, which meant getting someone to interpret the law and how it applied in her case, hence a judge.
Having people go directly to judges to get this document is maybe not the most straightforward way, but I think it makes sense.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Superhuman media kerfuffle:
IoW "if using commands involving the word 'force' is an ultra-common activity, you're
"What if you’re a Jedi?
(Also: WTF? I did not expect
jeditoJedito be in an autocorrect dictionary.)
-
@Gurth said in Superhuman media kerfuffle:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Superhuman media kerfuffle:
IoW "if using commands involving the word 'force' is an ultra-common activity, you're
"What if you’re a Jedi?
(Also: WTF? I did not expect
jeditoJedito be in an autocorrect dictionary.)Then under Order 66 you will be discriminated against, persecuted, prosecuted, villified, D monetized, and hunted.
-
-
@hungrier I'm under the impression that DD tends to be monetized somewhat better.
-
@hungrier said in Superhuman media kerfuffle:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Superhuman media kerfuffle:
D monetized
Autocorrect thought that was more appropriate somehow...
-
@HardwareGeek The wage gap thread is
-
@MrL said in Superhuman media kerfuffle:
@levicki said in Superhuman media kerfuffle:
@boomzilla said in Superhuman media kerfuffle:
Is there a GPO for enforcing code style? Asking for a friend.
Not sure about GPO but I hear there are Git pre-commit/pre-receive which can enforce coding standards for you by invoking clang-format.
StyleCop with 'violations are compile time errors' works better :)
"See Figure One" would be my reaction to that. And no, I won't apologise. Making the compiler blow up because you don't like the way I put down braces and parentheses is, quite frankly, GAU-8 time.
-
@remi said in Superhuman media kerfuffle:
@HardwareGeek No, I really think that if you think as a lawyer (ok, here's my problem), it makes sense. Here is how it goes, as far as I remember it.
This is about nationality. There are several ways you can be French. One way is for the French government to grant you the French nationality (which is, I think, the way that @Steve_The_Cynic is using -- and the only way for foreigners who simply live in France). There are some minimum conditions (e.g. having lived in France for some time etc.)
It isn't explicitly written down, but there's an effective requirement to send them an inch-thick stack of documents.
The other way (well, there may be yet others, but this is the other way that matters here)
The one that springs to mind, as an alternative form of naturalisation (mine is, er, will be "by decree"), is "by marriage". A foreigner married to a French citizen gets to bypass some of the requirements placed on people seeking a "by decree" naturalisation.
is to fall within the criteria for being French defined by law, and I'm stressing the operative word here. This is the case for most French, i.e. being born in France of French parents etc. This comes from article 18 of the Code Civil:
Est français l'enfant dont l'un des parents au moins est français.
[is French the child of which one of the parents at least is French]Re the "abbr" notes: "of which" isn't the bestest possible translation here, but it's pretty good, and way better than the proposed alternatives. I'd be tempted to rephrase it as "is French a child at least one of whose parents is French" since there's no really good universal counterpart to dont in English. It's often easy to translate by dropping in "of which" or "of whom", but there are cases, like this one, where it produces English that sounds like it's written by a non-native speaker.
-
@Steve_The_Cynic said in Superhuman media kerfuffle:
Est français l'enfant dont l'un des parents au moins est français.
[is French the child of which one of the parents at least is French]Re the "abbr" notes: "of which" isn't the bestest possible translation here, but it's pretty good, and way better than the proposed alternatives. I'd be tempted to rephrase it as "is French a child at least one of whose parents is French" since there's no really good universal counterpart to dont in English. It's often easy to translate by dropping in "of which" or "of whom", but there are cases, like this one, where it produces English that sounds like it's written by a non-native speaker.
Wouldn’t rewriting the sentence produce better results? Like: “A child, at least one of whose parents is French, is French.” Translation is usually best done not too literally (yes, this is the text of a law, but even there it doesn’t do to produce semi-nonsense as a translation).
-
@Gurth said in Superhuman media kerfuffle:
@Steve_The_Cynic said in Superhuman media kerfuffle:
Est français l'enfant dont l'un des parents au moins est français.
[is French the child of which one of the parents at least is French]Re the "abbr" notes: "of which" isn't the bestest possible translation here, but it's pretty good, and way better than the proposed alternatives. I'd be tempted to rephrase it as "is French a child at least one of whose parents is French" since there's no really good universal counterpart to dont in English. It's often easy to translate by dropping in "of which" or "of whom", but there are cases, like this one, where it produces English that sounds like it's written by a non-native speaker.
Wouldn’t rewriting the sentence produce better results? Like: “A child, at least one of whose parents is French, is French.” Translation is usually best done not too literally (yes, this is the text of a law, but even there it doesn’t do to produce semi-nonsense as a translation).
Yes, but I was following @remi 's lead in trying to preserve a little of the structure of the original phrase (which, stripped of context, isn't grammatically sound modern French either).
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in Superhuman media kerfuffle:
@Gurth when what it really means is that the text box has focus (and on mobile, that the keyboard is up). Which means very little in actual fact.
Not true, at least for the platforms that I use.
(Discord tends to take a long time in updating the status, especially on mobile, but it definitely detects if there's active typing)
-
@Steve_The_Cynic said in Superhuman media kerfuffle:
Yes, but I was following @remi 's lead in trying to preserve a little of the structure of the original phrase (which, stripped of context, isn't grammatically sound modern French either).
Indeed. In a normal conversation I would also reformulate the article, it's in a very weird style (technically grammatically correct, but very weird), but I was trying to stay close to the text for anyone willing to check my translation and to try and give a flavor of the original.
The style is typical of very old articles of the Code Civil (those dating back to the original Napoleonic one, essentially). Very short and concise, each word has a lot of meaning, and written in a contorted way that tries to put things like definitions in a dictionary (you can read this one as "French: a child of at least one French parent"). Another similar one is the definition of "civil responsibility" (i.e. "you pay for what you break"), which is the basis of almost all "civil" prosecutions. It's straight out, unmodified, from the original Code Civil, and requires very attentive reading as each and every word matters.
Tout fait quelconque de l'homme, qui cause à autrui un dommage, oblige celui par la faute duquel il est arrivé à le réparer.
[Any random act of a man, that causes a damage to someone else, forces he by which the fault happened to repair it]
More modern articles are written in more conventional way, see for example article 21-2 (the one relevant to "by marriage" mentioned above):
L'étranger ou apatride qui contracte mariage avec un conjoint de nationalité française peut, après un délai de quatre ans à compter du mariage, acquérir la nationalité française [etc.]
[The foreigner or apatride who contracts a marriage with a spouse of French nationality can, after a delay of 4 years from the day of the marriage, acquire the French nationality]
-
@remi said in Superhuman media kerfuffle:
Tout fait quelconque de l'homme, qui cause à autrui un dommage, oblige celui par la faute duquel il est arrivé à le réparer.
[Any random act of a man, that causes a damage to someone else, forces he by which the fault happened to repair it]
I'd be tempted to either leave quelconque out in the English translation ("Any act of a man ...") or weave in a circumlocution to replace it ("Any act, no matter what it is, of a man ..." or "Any act, voluntary or involuntary, of a man ..."). Neither "random" nor "arbitrary" is a good translation, in any event.
-
@remi said in Superhuman media kerfuffle:
Indeed. In a normal conversation I would also reformulate the article, it's in a very weird style (technically grammatically correct, but very weird), but I was trying to stay close to the text for anyone willing to check my translation and to try and give a flavor of the original.
The style is typical of very old articles of the Code Civil (those dating back to the original Napoleonic one, essentially). Very short and concise, each word has a lot of meaning, and written in a contorted way that tries to put things like definitions in a dictionary (you can read this one as "French: a child of at least one French parent"). Another similar one is the definition of "civil responsibility" (i.e. "you pay for what you break"), which is the basis of almost all "civil" prosecutions. It's straight out, unmodified, from the original Code Civil, and requires very attentive reading as each and every word matters.+1 for
-
@dkf said in Superhuman media kerfuffle:
French: a child of at least one French parent
: E_STACK_OVERFLOWwas thrown while evaluating the statement.
Preliminary analysis suggests that because at one point in the past there may not have been any French at all, currently the French do not exist.
-
@Applied-Mediocrity Now that you mention it, I did not want to be overly
ic previously, but this is where things get interesting.Indeed, it's a recursive things, so to prove you're French, all you need to do is find one proven French ancestor, and a direct line of always-born-in-France in between. The second bit is fairly easy, we've had overall reliable registers for at least 200 years or more (there are always some missing ones e.g. archives burnt during the wars, but overall, as long as it stays inside France, almost anyone can track back direct ancestry up to at least the French Revolution if not earlier).
So you're left with proving that that one ancestor was French. I think (from experience, but I don't know the exact legal basis) that a great-grand-parent born and married in France (and all intermediate links to them being also) is taken as an implicit proof that they were French. Or maybe you need at least X great-grand-parents to be in that case. More likely since it's ruled by a judge (see above...), you show proofs of that for as many ancestors as you can, and the judge decides whether at least one of them was French, on that basis. That's how it would work for most people where the administration has a doubt and asks you to prove it, I believe.
There are some interesting edge cases though: in 1870 the Crémieux Decree (named after the justice minister who pushed it) granted French nationality to all Jews living in (relatively recently colonised) Algeria. So if you track back your ancestry to one such person (and you and your parents etc. were born in France, or in French Algeria), then you're French. There has been at least one case where the highly secular French Republic asked someone to prove that they were of a specific religion (i.e. Jew), which is normally a huge no-no, in order to determine whether this person was French or not.
