It’s not nonsensical, implicit type coercion is a feature of JavaScript, it’s perfectly logical and predictable.
JavaScript is a filthy beast, it’s not the right tool for every job, but it’s not nonsensical.
When you follow a string with a +, it concatenates it with the next value (converted to string if needed). This makes sense, and it’s a very standard convention in most languages.
Applying arithmetic to a string would be nonsensical, which they don’t do.
It’s not hard to find out what’s being pirated, BitTorrent isn’t private.
friend of mine had a ford like this. and it cost more than the car to fix after only 10-15ish years of use. its terrible.
Yeah, that’s just how it goes as the engine becomes more complex, leaving a dipstick there is not gonna change that…
This is a reactionary response, you’re just arguing, slow down a bit.
Do you see a value in a check engine light that tells you something is wrong in between full inspections? This is similar, this is telling you there isn’t enough oil and damage is occurring before you get a chance to inspect the dipstick.
It’s not planned obsolescence unless they also make it unreasonable to service. We already expect to routinely service engines, and they are already very complex and full of sensors, sure this is adding to the complexity but it’s relatively pretty minor.
The argument being made, and I agree with it, is that the benefits of an additional long-serving sensor way outweigh the con of having one additional sensor in your car. You get early warning before damage occurs, you get built in fraud protection when you’re changing your oil at a shady chain, you eliminate a direct access port for dirt to contaminate the oil.
The original WSL doesn’t use the Linux kernel at all, it’s a Windows Subsystem for compatibility with Linux. WSL2 actually visualizes a complete Linux kernel, but the name stuck.
This is already a solved problem, we’re well past one model systems, and any competitive AI offering can augment its information from the Internet.
No, they said they “ruled out” privacy for “obvious reasons”.
Obviously mockable statement.
Sure. And you’re entitled to yours. But words have meaning and this isn’t MY OPINION, it’s objective reality. It follows strict rules for predictable output, it is not nonsensical.
You’re entitled to think it’s nonsense, and you’d be wrong. You don’t have to like implicit type coercion, but it’s popular and in many languages for good reason…
'5' - 1 → 4'5' + 1 → 6'5' + 1 → 6$(( '5' + 1 )) → 6"5" + 1 → 6"5" + 1 → 6'5' + 1 → 54(ASCII math)'5' + 1 → 6'5' + 1 → 6'5' - 1 → 4"5" + 1 → 6'5' + 1 → 6'5' + 1 → 6'5' + 1 → 6'5' + 1 → 6'5' - 1 → 4'5' - 1 → 4"5" + 1 → 6(5) 1 add → 6I think JavaScript is filthy, I’m at home with C#, but I understand and don’t fear ITC.