For those who don't know the story: it's ironic because Jefferson died first.

In DC, they're storing the combined runoff+sewage until it can be treated: https://dcist.com/story/23/09/18/new-anacostia-river-tunnel-...

As expensive as this project is, separating the storm drains from the sewage lines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_sewer) in an existing system is much more costly.

That’s actually the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, on 14th St. SW, which is indeed worth visiting. They print the paper bills (among other things). The U.S. Mint produces the coins. I think only the Philadelphia Mint still mints coins, but it’s also worth visiting.

Denver also mints coins for circulation (mint mark D) and San Francisco does rarely, but mostly does proof sets (legal tender, but generally kept by collectors). Apparently there’s also a newer mint at West Point which uses a W mint mark and also mints coins for circulation.

You can (and should!) tell pip not to do this with '--only-binary=:all:'. Building from source is a lousy default.

Requiring increasingly long arcane incantations in the name of backwards compatibility is a terrible design philosophy and introduces security fatigue. Most users will not use aliases, and it's poor security posture to ask them to.

Given how often the python community already deals with breaking changes, it shouldn't be much different for pip to adopt saner defaults in a new major version.

While I agree, pip has very strong backward compatibility requirements. I'm not sure why, maybe because people tend to upgrade it without considering the consequences.

For what it’s worth, I was in the “loved it” camp.

(I’m the author of dataclasses, and I owe an immeasurable debt to Hynek).

Thank you for creating dataclasses!

And for a similar idea in Python see https://peps.python.org/pep-0750/

I think you're saying that it takes fewer characters to define a namedtuple. If you're interested in less typing, There's also dataclasses.make_dataclass:

   >>> Point = dataclasses.make_dataclass("Point", ["x", "y", "z"])
   >>> Point(1, 2, 3)
   Point(x=1, y=2, z=3)

This is incorrect. The returned integer is a regular Python object, not some "unboxed" integer value.

What you're seeing here is an optimization about integers, not about pass by value. CPython only does this for small integers:

  $ python -c "print(int('3') is int('3'))"
  True
  $ python -c "print(int('300') is int('300'))"
  False

Other implementations make different choices.

I’ve worked at places where subverting firewall rules like this would get you fired. I now refer to such situations where I’m forced to twiddle my thumbs while no work gets done as “letting the process work”.

I always kick this kind of decision upwards: we can do it this way and break this rule, so I need director level approval, or we can wait until the customer blinks.

Yes. Ask your boss for approval and tell them otherwise nothing will get done.