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.)
I guess it's a hot take, but dynamic range is a very useful tool, not limited to movies but also music and almost any audio that isn't just "talking heads".
I do want explosions to be significantly louder than whispers.
Not everything is a podcast / video essay that needs to be mixed to minimal dynamic range.
Michael: See, the trolley problem forces you to choose between two versions of letting other people die. And the actual solution is very simple. Sacrifice yourself.
The run time still has to assign a semantics to it, even if that semantics is a fatal error. In a compiled language, you can prevent the run time from having to assign any semantics by eliminating the error condition at compile time.
Not having a separate compilation step absolutely affects error handling. With a compilation step, you can have errors that will only be seen by and must be address by a developer prior to run time. Without one, the run time system, must assign some semantics to the source code, no matter how erroneous it is.
No matter what advisory "signature" you imagine for a function, JS has to assign some run time semantics to that function being called incorrectly. Compiled languages do not have to provide a run time semantics to for signatures that can be statically checked.
All functions built with function name(args) { body } syntax have a length based on the form of args. Other ways to create functions might set length (I'm not sure). Most of the functions provided by the runtime environment do have a length, usually based on the number of "required" arguments.
So, the language isn't compiled (or wasn't originally) so they couldn't make min() be an error that only a developer saw, it has to be something that the runtime on the end-user system dealt with. So, it had to be assigned some value. Under those restrictions, it is the most mathematically sound value. It makes miniumum-exactly-2(x, min(<...>)) be exactly the same as min(x, <...>), even when the "<...>" has no values.
As a developer, I see a lot of value in static analysis, including refusing to generate output for sufficiently erroneous results of static analysis, so I don't like using JS, and the language that I tinker with will definitely have a separate compilation step and reject the equivalent of min(). But, if I HAD to assign something like that a value, it probably would be a representation of infinity, if we had one (probably will due to IEEE floats).
Oh, I may have violated distancing protocols then. My personal delay device doesn't have sub-microsecond accuracy. Should I will have gotten a test for time-invariant COVID ?
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.)