crashfrog

joined 11 months ago
[–] crashfrog@lemm.ee 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

So what you’re saying is that, in fact, all EV’s do have lithium batteries

[–] crashfrog@lemm.ee -5 points 1 month ago (7 children)

Surely firefighters know better than to use water on a battery?

[–] crashfrog@lemm.ee 29 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You don’t get “rejected”, they just hire someone who isn’t you.

[–] crashfrog@lemm.ee 7 points 1 month ago

You really do need to call someone for this, if this is a thermostat valve on a radiator you’re going to burn yourself

[–] crashfrog@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago

Communism is when made-up stats

[–] crashfrog@lemm.ee -1 points 11 months ago (8 children)

The point is that there are beds that nobody are using while people are forced to sleep on the ground.

If you let a guy sleep on it, then you can't sell it. Who would buy it? The bed isn't "not being used", it's not being used as a bed.

It's about resources not being used as efficiently as they could be

There's nothing inefficient about this allocation of resources.

[–] crashfrog@lemm.ee 8 points 11 months ago (26 children)

"Capitalism is when stores aren't hotels"

[–] crashfrog@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago

But most of us know not to use Cheque leaves for transaction purposes (You get fined, if you end up encashing a cheque when your balance cannot cover the Cheque amount)

Wow, that sucks. Maybe you should talk to your bank about getting some kind of protection against a check being returned NSF and paying a massive-ass fine.

[–] crashfrog@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago
[–] crashfrog@lemm.ee 0 points 11 months ago (2 children)

The bank doesn't balance your checkbook. You do.

[–] crashfrog@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

What would be an example where you need different logic based on a number's parity? Why wouldn't you write logic that ignores the number's parity?

Part of getting better as a programmer is realizing which stuff doesn't matter, and writing less code, as a result.

view more: ‹ prev next ›