It doesn't have to be on purpose. Accident implies that something was just a freak occurrence beyond anyone's control. You can't fix accidents. You can fix crashes.
If you're driving negligently - drunk driving, not paying attention, etc then it's not an accident.
If it's due to bad road design, then it's not an accident.
AFAIK, most details of elections are set by the states, right? I think at the federal level, it might require an amendment to require that states use ranked choice, STAR. 3-2-1 or whatever.
Maybe, maybe not. People follow the path of least resistance.
Right now, electric cars are a pain because there aren't DC fast charges everywhere. They're great for the daily commute because you can charge them at home, but they're a bit annoying when you want to do a road trip.
What happens when adoption of electric cars goes up? We'll see more charging stations, and fewer gas pumps. When gas pumps are as rare as DC fast chargers are, who is going to want the annoyance of a gas car? You'll only be able to sell to hobbyists who don't mind driving 30 min to a gas station. And will they really want whichever car you're driving?
Pure functions should be referentially transparent; you should be able to replace them with whatever value they evaluate to without changing the semantics of your code.
Throwing is referentially impure: what value do you get from calling x => throw new RuntimeException()?
Instead, functional languages prefer to return a tagged union of the value or the error.
Functional languages typically have type inference, so the type signatures are entirely optional. I haven't looked that deeply at unison, but I'd be entirely unsurprised if it had global type inference and if all or most type signatures were optimal.
It's less that you have to declare something can do IO or throw an exception, and more that you're calling something from the standard library that does IO or throws an exception.
Most stuff does neither. There's a type level distinction between normal, regular pure code, and impure effectful code, so it's easy to tell from the type signature whether a function is pure or not.
7 million is "retiring doctor" or "retiring Google engineer" rich.
It's generally considered safe to withdraw 4% of your nest egg the first year, and adjust that for inflation moving forwards. $7 million can sustain a $280k/year retirement. That's certainly rich, but there's a world of difference between that and a billionaire. A billionaire can safely spend $40 million a year.
I'm not sure that it does. All the articles I can find word it as something like "has a range of 710 kilometers (441 miles) on a sunny day.", without actually explaining it. I'm assuming that's going from 100% charge to 0% charge, plus all the range gained by charging during the day.
They don't actually say anywhere I can find how quickly it charges.
If you wanted maximum range, you'd start before dawn, drive most of your battery away, park somewhere all day to use that solar awning for all its worth, then continue driving at dusk.
It's not that it's far-fetched. It's just impractical. Solar panels don't really generate that much power per square foot. Charging a car with just the roof can take days.
One model of solar roofed electric car on the market recharges ~20 miles per day with the roof.
Charging stations are a way better idea for road trips in electric cars, as is plugging the car in overnight. This is great for a remote hermit, but more interesting for the hack value than a practical option.
Hell - my next-door neighbors have horses in their backyards and so do three houses directly across the street, and I've never seen one of these. Everyone has 150s or 250s.
Let me make sure I understand you: your argument is that any self-consistent Jew cannot make an image of anything that can be compared to religion? So anything grand that people find meaning in that requires sacrifices with weird superstitions and rituals.
So no flags because of the religion of nationalism, no money because of the religion of money, no On Food And Cooking because of the religion of French cuisine, and no pictures of Rossini because of the religion of opera?
Race is the wrong word in the modern American context. Jews aren't a race in the sense of black vs white.
Jews are, however, an ethnicity - much like how you can be ethnically Navaho or ethnically Basque. It's a matter of being part of a community of people with a shared culture and ancestry. And yes, beta Israel and Ashkenazim are both ethnically Jewish.
Yes. Children do not literally worship their nation-state with literal religious reverence. No rabbi would tell you that the ten commandments are about prohibiting metaphorical sacrifices to metaphorical religions.
No rabbi would say that saying that someone "worships money" turns their wallet into an alter and their job into idol worship. Religiously, it's just a metaphorical turn of phrase.
Maimonides, probably the most influential rabbi of the middle ages, explicitly called Christians idolaters. The trinity isn't precisely considered polytheistic; the Hebrew term is shituf.
Can you find a single rabbi who would call volunteering to join a military and dying at war halachically prohibited human sacrifice to the nation-as-god or flag-as-idol?
And where exactly did I call myself a religious nationalist? I'm just saying that your argument that the term is an oxymoron is idiotic and betrays a deep ignorance of the religion. I mean, you couldn't even quote the right commandment - in Judaism, the first item on the ten commandants is "I am the lord your God", which makes your argument a complete non sequitur.
Nations aren't considered gods, and flags aren't idols of those non-gods. You don't sacrifice goats to the flag, or burn incense for it.
Judaism has historically looked at Christian beliefs and practices with way, way more suspicion of polytheism and idolatry than it's ever looked at national flags.
The teacher here is unhinged, but you clearly don't really know very much about the ten commandments, especially from a Jewish context.
70% of Israelis want him to resign. But only 25% want him to resign now - most want him to wait until the current war settles down. Which unfortunately gives him and Ben Gvir some perverse incentives, because there's no way they remain in power after the dust settles.
Though the statute affords physicians discretion, it requires more than a doctor’s mere subjective belief. By requiring the doctor to exercise “reasonable medical judgment,” the Legislature determined that the medical judgment involved must meet an objective standard. Dr. Karsan asserted that she has a “good faith belief” that Ms. Cox meets
the exception’s requirements. Certainly, a doctor cannot exercise “reasonable medical judgment” if she does not hold her judgment in good faith. But the statute requires that judgment be a “reasonable medical” judgment, and Dr. Karsan has not asserted that her “good faith belief” about Ms. Cox’s condition meets that standard. ...
Nothing in this opinion prevents a physician from acting if, in that physician’s reasonable medical judgment, she determines that Ms. Cox has a “life-threatening physical condition” that places her “at risk of death” or “poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless the abortion is performed or induced.”
Basically, the opinion is a fairly legalistic argument that the physician didn't use the right magic words, but that the ruling doesn't matter because there's no de jure requirement for court preapproval. It completely misses the point of why doctors are unwilling to perform abortions without that approval.
It doesn't have to be on purpose. Accident implies that something was just a freak occurrence beyond anyone's control. You can't fix accidents. You can fix crashes.
If you're driving negligently - drunk driving, not paying attention, etc then it's not an accident.
If it's due to bad road design, then it's not an accident.