In an ideal world it would always be possible to credit the photographer, but I guess that's sadly unrealistic.
If there's an interest for fakes I guess the could be a "Fowl Friday" or something like that every month, where fake owls are allowed/encouraged if properly tagged. I guess the value would be educational, showing people how to tell that impressive-looking wildlife photography is fake. You're an expert of this, and it's very much appreciated that you share your insights. :)
I do give it my best, since I want to remain a trusted source for all your owl related things. I don't know much about photography or image editing so when people talk about shadows not matching, image artifacts and the like, I'm not so good with noticing that.
I just try to apply what I do know and use my critical thinking, and if there's any doubt, I'll just move on rather than end up accidentally misleading you all. I've spent months now building up your respect, but I know it can quickly be undone if I'm not vigilant. I respect you syo and your time, so I wouldn't like it if I let you down.
It either violates federal law or it doesn't. May is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Not to mention there are signs for both up to 10% and up to 15%...
If the purpose of the warning is to make sure people get the blend they want then just say that.
Buying E10 fuel (a mixture that contains 10 percent ethanol) from a hose that also supplies E15 fuel (a mixture that contains 15 percent ethanol) must buy at least four gallons to protect customers following behind. Ethanol is hard on engines and less efficient than regular gasoline. E15 can even cause engine failure in smaller or older engines. So if you’re using a blender pump to buy E10 that sells both E15 and E10, the residual amount of E15 left in the hose from the previous customer could cause significant damage to those smaller and older engines—unless you purchase at least 4 gallons.
Why force companies to buy pumps that blend when you can force all liability onto the customer?
Gas stations can get away buying cheap blending pumps and if it breaks someone's older car just shrug and say it must have been the previous customer's fault, we're not liable.
It's probably administrative law associated with DOT regulations. So yes it is a law but not quite in the same way you think of when Congress passes a law. Instead Congress passed a law that said DOT we give this agency the power to regulate these specific things. Go create a working committee and create some regulation. Administrative law is a bit more like civil law than criminal law. In general violation is just fine and they are handled by administrative law courts. Part of what makes them so different is they do not fall under the justice department they are contained within whichever agency has jurisdiction over that area of regulation. They've been affirmed to be functionally the same as federal courts, but can only sanction the guilty party in the exact manner the regulation says. Otherwise when the case is concluded and a party is found guilty is then referred to a federal court for sanctions.
This seems like it's flipped around backwards. The picture says you have to pump more than 4 gallons if you are getting E15, but the explanation seems to explain why someone pumping E10 would want to pump more than 4 gallons.
I bet the real reason is that someone could pump a couple of gallons of cheaper E15, knowing they'd actually receive E10, leaving the next person to actually get that gas.
Customer B buys 1 gallon of E10 from the same pump.
Customer C buys 1 gallon of E10 from the same pump and puts it in his chainsaw. If that gallon ruins Customer C's chainsaw, it's legally Customer B's fault? What the fuck?
Forcing B to buy more gas than he might want, to protect the customer after him, because of the customer that came before him, is some horseshit.
In the given example, is the gas station not forcing Customer B to purchase more gas than they may want or need? What if I have a chainsaw with a 1 gallon fuel tank? Now I need to not only buy more gas than I can use, but a container to safely store it in. (It's also illegal to dispense gasoline to/from an unauthorized container!) Now if I use my chainsaw once or twice a year, I also get to dump out that extra gasoline because it's gone bad by the time I need to use it again.
In one human lifetime (1900 to 1970) we developed antibiotics, sliced bread, controlled flight, television, jet engines, atomic energy, integrated circuits, satellites and landed on the moon.
In the 50 years since we have done exceedingly little by comparison. We've made better screens for TVs, repackaged radio as wifi, and filled ourselves and the environment with plastic.
Everyone didn’t. Everyone decided to delegate all their autonomy to some delusional shitheads we now feel powerless to stop. They made the decisions because they prefer having slaves.
You are correct about it allowing you to have zero health and not die, but whether or not that’s the correct behavior will depend on the game. Off the top of my head I know that Street Fighter, some versions at least, let you cling to life at zero.
This won’t work if you can ever take more than 1 damage. If you were at 1 and received 2 damage you would become invincible. You’d want to do less than or equal to.
I know this is /c/Progammerhumor, but I wanted to pull on this thread a little bit for my own edification. I’m a Python guy and have been a while, but I’ve dabbled in other languages. The screenshot says “MonoBehaviour” which makes me assume this is mono or a .Net-like language (you know what happens when you assume).
If your player health is a float, would mono or .Net have an issue comparing the float with integer zero “0”? I mean, it seems like floating point precision may make it impossible for it to ever “equal” integer zero, but it also seems like the code isn’t accounting for that precision error.
Floating point errors are a product of how floating points work as a mathematical concept. So they’re independent of the programming language and can happen everywhere.
In this case though, I doubt it’s a critical issue. So the player “died” when they actually had 0.000000000027 hp left or whatever. Who cares? Do you need to be that precise?
As a noob in unity and programming, my understanding is that MonoBehavior only means that this script has to be attached as a component to a game object to function. And has no other meaning - but correct me if I’m wrong please.
Well if you have a “down but not dead” condition then yes, you could escape a fight with 0 health (assuming you have teammates/pawns that can save you).
Proposition: If x is good, then x is taken. Fact: there exists an example that is bad and single. The fact doesn't really prove the proposition, it just doesn't disprove it. Even from a Bayesian perspective, it would only provide very weak evidence... I think?
lemmy.world
Hot