I don't feel fat ... but my BMI is obese. And, I feel like I'm "always" hungry. The only thing keeping me at this weight is that I keep up my exercise and just suffer through hunger sometimes. :(
There's no way I can afford Wegovy, and I'm sure I'd be one of the people that get blinded by it even if I could afford.
Ah, must be a knock-off. Killing 27 after adding 28 would definitely give that extra.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you can get a screen like panel 2 outside of vs (and no link cable is shown). It has an odd number of pieces, but each new tetromino adds 4, and each line clear deletes 10, so you always have an even number on screen. Does B-type sometimes start with an odd amount of "trash"?
So, I think probably everyone in the thread is "correct", but you are actually talking past one another.
I think the JS behavior is a bad design choice, but it is well documented and consistent across implementations.
I think it's less about type system, and more about lack of a separate compilation step.
With a compilation step, you can have error messages that developers see, but users don't. (Hopefully, these errors enable the developers to reduce the errors that users see, and just generally improve the UX, but that's NOT guaranteed.)
Without a compilation step, you have to assign some semantics to whatever random source string your interpreter gets. And, while you can certainly make that an error, that would rarely be helpful for the user. JS instead made the choice to, as much as possible, avoid error semantics in favor of silent coercions, conversions, and conflations in order to make every attempt to not "error-out" on the user.
It would be a very painful decade indeed to now change the semantics for some JS source text.
Purescript is a great option. Typescript is okay. You could also introduce a JS-to-JS "compilation" step that DID reject (or at least warn the developer) for source text that "should" be given an error semantic, but I don't know an "off-the-shelf" approach for that -- other than JSLint.
(.) is a valid expression in Haskell. Normally it is the prefix form of the infix operator . that does function
composition. (.) (2*) (1+) 3 = ((2*) . (1+)) 3 = 2 * (1 + 3) = 8.
But, the most common use of the word "boob" in my experience in Haskell is the "boobs operator": (.)(.). It's usage in Haskell is limited (tho valid), but it's appearance in racy ASCII art predates even the first versions on Haskell.
Oddly enough, in Haskell (as defined by the report), length is monomorphic, so it just doesn't work on tuples (type error).
Due to the way kinds (types of types) work in Haskell, Foldable instances can only operate over (i.e. length only counts) elements of the last/final type argument. So, for (,) it only counts the second part, which is always there exactly once. If you provided a Foldable for (,,,) it would also have length of 1.
This is my favorite language: GHC Haskell
GHC Haskell:
GHCi> length (2, "foo")
1
I guess running. About 4 years ago, I started on the treadmill with an exhausting 30min/mi. Earlier this week I completed my first 7min/mi. Along the way, I added a 28min/5k@1.5% and am working on a 60min/10k (today did 62min/10k).
I saw one that claimed "plumber approved" and it made me so mad we don't have meaningful laws against deceptive advertising.
I'd like really sewer-safe wet wipes. If tried several bidets and did not like them, definitely worse than wipes IMO.
Rachet theory. R moves one direction; D refuses to move in the other.
It's not entirely false, but it's also not the whole story. Voting D is better than staying home. It might not be better than direct action -- but given the size of the voting window, it's probably not completely eclipsed by your activism. (If it is, watch out for the FBI and keep working for a better world, comrade.)
My weight also fluctuates more than I'd expect. I take it on the same scale, and the same part of my morning (nearly first thing in the morning, just after I brush my teeth) and I'll routinely lose more than a pound (or after a bad day, gain more than 10), tho experts really say losing more than about a pound a week is unsustainable.