That depends on whether you interpret "when" + past tense in English to also assert the reality of the temporal clause. The interpretation which allows the vacuous truth is, in my opinion, not even technically correct (by correct I mean aligns with actual spoken usage). It would amount to formalizing the sentence as

For all meetings between us, if said meeting is at a past time and it's the first meeting (i.e. before all other meetings), you promised at that time to give me all your money.

Which is indeed vacuously true, if there have been no past meetings, or even if the meetings aren't well-ordered in time :). On the surface this is a perfectly good interpretation, but it doesn't really align with real usage (though I would love to see an example of "when" + past tense being used this way, e.g. in a legal document).

On the other hand, most people would interpret "when" + past to assert that the event actually happened, which in this context means

I have met you before, a "first meeting" can be identified, and at that first meeting, you promised to give me all your money.

Or even more formally

There exist meetings between us at a past time, there exists such a unique meeting which is first, and, for all meetings, if said meeting is indeed the first, you promised me at that time to give me all your money.

And this can be reduced to

There exists a unique past meeting between us such that [it's first, and you promised to give me all your money at that time].

I think this interpretation is most closely aligned with how "when" is actually used in practice. "If" feels different, though. It can act as simple logical implication, logical equivalence, or anything in between, so it may be more interesting to study. Also note that all of this doesn't apply to "when" + simple present, which acts very similarly to "if".

I still can't quite accept that the French for "what" is literally "what is it that"

The military censor in Israel does the exact same thing: ostensibly to prevent enemies from using the data to improve their systems, in reality as an attempt to keep domestic morale high (it only ever manages to slow down the inevitable fall, though).

It’s the other way around: RHEL is a corporate fork of Fedora.

As a fun fact, some interpretations say that by binding Isaac and being ready to proceed, Abraham failed the test, either in the eyes of God or at the very least in the eyes of the author. The second verse has God saying (JPS Contemporary Torah)

Take your son, your favored one, Isaac, whom you love […] [emphasis mine]

And after stopping him, the angel (which is identified with God) says

I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your favored one, from Me.

The description of Abraham's love for Isaac is missing, despite identical phrasing (also in Hebrew) otherwise. It's as if God (or the author) is taunting Abraham.

This also raises a concern about God's omniscience; he says "now I know that you fear God", as if he wasn't previously sure. There are many ways to resolve this, but the Bible is just very inconsistent everywhere.

So why did > ever become greater and < be less than? Doesn’t it also depend on how your text is written? If people reading from right to left or down to up vs left to right and up to down, means it’s reversed.

Yes. > is "greater than" because you're reading left-to-right. 12 > 9, read: "twelve is greater than nine". When reading in a right-to-left script, it's the opposite, but because of how the BiDi spec works, the same Unicode character is actually used for the same semantic meaning, rather than the appearance. Taking the exact same block of text but formatting it right-to-left (using directional isolate characters) yields "⁧12 > 9⁩", which is still read as a "greater than", just from right-to-left.

Hopefully that makes sense.

So yes, if you copy the > character and paste in any directional environment, it will retain its meaning of "greater than".

Edit: on my phone, the RTL portion is not formatted well. If you can’t see it, try a browser.

Do keep in mind that, amazingly, he was probably the most moderate actor in the government.

Why does sudo su exist? sudo -i does exactly what you want.

Well, if you consider Israel to be a nuclear power…

And then there's Belgium, which apparently holds the world record for longest time without a government. At least introduce time limits for negotiations, guys…

Hitler has only got one ball!
The other is in the Albert hall,
His mother, the dirty bugger,
Cut it off when he was small.

In my country, basically everyone accepts climate change, except perhaps the most conservative and those who already believe in conspiracy theories. What is going on in the US?