Doesn't all the non-heat work eventually just become heat? Or am I misunderstanding your usage? Like a car with a solar panel still ends up radiating work as heat, by either air resistance (heat) or brake friction (heat).
> hell even big operations like a heart transplant or C-section are rarely done "in the moment."
Agree on the plannability, but not on the predictability. Once you are on that table, and especially if you are under anesthesia, there are an untold number of ways that procedure can quickly turn into a secondary emergency procedure. It's a miracle of modern medicine that such invasive procedures are perceived as being trivial.
I remember for the first few days no one was saying anything certain. But once the official reports started flowing after those first few days, they were very certain about the fact that the sub had imploded.
The public wasn't certain, but the search and rescue teams were made aware of the implosion that was detected, that wasn't going to stop an attempt to verify the wreckage.
I used to do the same with just Excel. First sheet called 1040, one row per line. Schedules and worksheets got additional sheets, so I could easily pull in the values from and to other sheets.
I called Spectrum before I canceled to specifically ask if they could get me faster internet without changing my TV package. They said no -- I was on a grandfathered plan from a prior company they had bought, and they would have to recreate the account to do anything. So I got Fios + YouTube TV instead. And when I called to cancel Spectrum, the guys says he wishes I had called before getting Fios.
It's very clear that the only time they care is when your actual money is on the line. Before that, everyone is shackled by whatever chains management puts on them.
This was also shortly after they sent me a new modem and told me to install it or risk losing connectivity within like a week. And then on my next bill is a charge for updating the modem...
They identified a thing that changes, but in a consistent way across the sample population. That's a very important distinction, because synchronizing vocalizations is not easy. Humans spend a long time learning it. And failure to do it "correctly" can be everything from an accent to a speech pathology, depending on how "wrong" it is. (Scare quotes purely because the definition of right and wrong changes over space and time.)
It's funny that you phrase this as such, because this exact kind of simple geometry is my go-to example for why this stuff is not as simple. Let's look at a square. Everyone knows a square is a rectangle, right? So of course a square should extend from a rectangle.
But math doesn't deal with mutability all that much. It's interested in the visible properties and constraints. A square is a rectangle because it meets all the constraints and has all the properties of a rectangle. But that is no longer true if the shapes are mutable. A rectangle might appropriately have `setWidth` and `setHeight` operations. A square cannot implement these operations and still obey Liskov substitution, without the ability to downgrade its type to a rectangle. In OOP you might correct this by making the square immutable and the `setWidth` and `setHeight` operations would return a rectangle instead of a square.
To bring this specifically to this use case: Yes, it's a defined mathematical operation to scale a shape such as a square on the x-axis. But, if you do, that square is now a rectangle. This may be important to the implementation, it may not. But it's certainly a relevant technical concern.
No, a square is a rhombus and a kite, same as a rectangle is a kite, so both should be kites. And both are also trapezoids, so they should be trapezoids too. And paralellograms. And of course all of these are quadrilaterals. A square is also a
The idea of geometric objects in a hierarchy leads to either incorrectness or problems in the implementation (most of the time both ;). Just don't do that.
I think people are surprised by the wording of it, but the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS) is de-facto the same. The facts are taken as ruled in the lower courts. So unless there is a question regarding how the facts and the law interact, the SCOTUS don't really have jurisdiction in the case.
> The Supreme Court relies on the record assembled by lower courts for the facts of a case and deals solely with the question of how the law applies to the facts presented.
And later:
> The court grants a petition for cert only for "compelling reasons", spelled out in the court's Rule 10. Such reasons include:
> * Resolving a conflict in the interpretation of a federal law or a provision of the federal Constitution
> * Correcting an egregious departure from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings
> * Resolving an important question of federal law, or to expressly review a decision of a lower court that conflicts directly with a previous decision of the court.
* spellcheck
* autocorrect (Safari non-standard)
* autocapitalize
* autocomplete