Joe Vinegar 🏳️‍🌈

(my) boosts are not endorsements, just topic selection.
Into privacy, computer communication, and humans trying to peacefully coexist (and help each other). I said humans, but actually more "living beings", although I haven't reached the vegetarian level (plants also are living beings anyway).
I'm a white cis male, pronouns: he/him but they/them is ok as well. I'll respect your pronouns whatever they are, as a basic way to respect you.
🍉
#nobridge

Last Notes

2026-04-05 23:26:48 CEST

- reply

I boosted this out of sympathy, but are there public sources for these statements?

2025-06-13 20:44:34 CEST

- reply

same from Italy as well. Wish you effectiveness in the fight and safety from intimidation, violence, and retaliation.
We have our own [original brand of] fascism going on: protesters are the best part of USA, the one that can still be an inspiration, contrasting the official representatives of that and our nations.

2025-04-22 12:29:14 CEST

- reply

could someone with access to the quoted post also share the linked sources? it would be a huge boost in usefulness (and trustworthiness).

2025-01-17 09:06:13 CET

- reply

ok, I'll bite and treat this as a genuine question and offer help.
I'm not an expert in COBOL so my answer is naive. To avoid naive answers you could provide more context, e.g. explaining why you find the (explicit) error strange, and warn that the obvious answer (that I'm providing below) doesn't solve your problem.
In COBOL the IF statement is closed by END-IF, which is missing in the snippet of code you provided (and possibly in the following code).
If you happen to have the END-IF, maybe you don't have enough, in a nested IF, or you have another syntax error that closes the statement in an undesired way.
As from your profile you seem proficient in multiple programming languages, I bet your message is a form of trolling/experiment.
Finally, the reply to the prompt implied in the question:
WHY COBOL?! 😁

2024-12-14 18:00:50 CET

- reply

that strongly depends on how you feel about the system. maybe it's flawed. maybe that 1/4's behavior is a symptom of something else that is wrong, and by "defending" the system from these "internal threats" you're ignoring the flaws, blame shifting them on other kinds of victims, and become instrumental to perpetuate the flawed system. So maybe you had some specific sensible case in mind, and I can possibly relate with that. But the problem is far from so generally and simply framed. Ugly choice of words anyway: you frame it aggressively in the first place. Finally, I have no allegiance to the system in which I may have authority, besides my own moral compass, that's way more complex than the simplistic frame you volunteer.