This part is not correct. I can't speak for the other languages, but in Python the exception that is originally thrown is the one that creates the traceback. If the finally block also throws an exception, then the traceback includes that as additional information. The author includes an addendum, yet he is still wrong about which exception is first raised.
The traceback is actually shown based on the last-thrown exception (that thrown from the finally in this example), but includes the previous "chained exceptions" and prints them first. From CPython docs [1]:
> When raising a new exception while another exception is already being handled, the new exception’s __context__ attribute is automatically set to the handled exception. An exception may be handled when an except or finally clause, or a with statement, is used. [...] The default traceback display code shows these chained exceptions in addition to the traceback for the exception itself. [...] In either case, the exception itself is always shown after any chained exceptions so that the final line of the traceback always shows the last exception that was raised.
So, in practice, you will see both tracebacks. However, if you, say, just catch the exception with a generic "except Exception" or whatever and log it without "__context__", you will miss the firstly thrown exception.
It's 160kbit/s for popularity>0 and 75kbit/s for popularity=0. I'm surprised Anna's Archive went for this given that these are not archival quality bitrates. It appears they did this because they found a way, rather than seeking to create a library of music.
my comparison was with source catalog in spotify compared to the private tracker. spotify is working on the high fidelity mode, but so far it is not rolled out worldwide.
i completely understand the archive's decision on applying their own compression.
No, he doesn't. He doesn't discuss the gigantic dividing line between the two different types of systems I categorize above. He also doesn't cover the "feel it in your bones" required in the type 1 systems. Spend a minute reading or listening to Jeff Dean talk, and you'll see what is required to build those types of systems. Spend some time somewhere working on those systems and you'll come across some folks who just have this ready to go and can apply it and the drop of a hat.
If you actually read the research paper linked in the article, it says the speed may exceed that of the escape velocity of the Milky Way, suggesting that it is not proven as fact yet.
I suggest you take a look at this list of physical constants, paying special attention to the "uncertainty" column, and then get back to us on why you don't accept any of them except the speed of light.
That's an absurd statement. For example, planck's constant is known to better than 1%, as is the mass of various particles. Heck, the Earth, which is sufficiently non-spherical for it to matter only differs in radius (between polar and equatorial) by 0.3%!
G (the gravitational constant) is an interesting one: the value is only known to about 5 significant figures, but GM (the gravitational constant multiplied by the mass of the Earth) is known a lot more accurately, unsurprisingly, considering how well GPS works. Some of those constants seem to be known to about 12 significant figures.
