eplawless

They mention it:

> There is an efficiency penalty converting back to electricity; round-trip efficiency is 40%-45%, but sometimes the steady supply of electricity is worth it.

I'm sure it is by revenue.

I think the Daughter From California will be perceived and treated the same way by care providers regardless of whether they end up being right, and regardless of their actual vs perceived motivation, so from that perspective I think it still fits.

Doctors are just people - they don't appreciate it when somebody parachutes in to question their work, and they make mistakes like anybody else.

I was this person for my dad's care, heading back to Canada from California after his third ambulance ride to the hospital and subsequent discharge a few hours later. Turns out his first doctor at the ER had correctly identified the life-threatening condition he had developed, and when the shift changed the new physician ignored the handoff instructions and sent him home. If I hadn't pushed to get the ER to look again he would be dead now. I think the syndrome described is real, and enough doctors are bad enough at practicing medicine that it saves lives.

That's sick, great work.

It might be worthwhile to expand a bit in the docs on the problems you see with JS concurrency (why you think it sucks, maybe some examples) and then show how ts-chan fixes those problems.

I'm curious which features highland provides which RxJS doesn't. From what I understand, composable streams from any data source with backpressure support is pretty much the definition of Rx.

Sometimes simplicity is a feature, too, though.

I disagree as fervently as possible; always use reference counting smart pointers. It is substantially harder to guarantee exception safety if you don't make use of them. You'll also be able to program more quickly without devoting extra mental cycles to make sure everything is cleaned up properly.

Using valgrind IN ADDITION is a good idea, but there is no reason to avoid smart pointer memory management.

I run a Windows install natively, as it's far more reliable than any desktop Linux distribution I have ever used. I then run Ubuntu 9.10 in a virtual machine on one of my monitors or in Unity mode or what have you. This works very well for me; when Ubuntu inevitably breaks, it's trivial to revert to a working snapshot, and it doesn't take down the majority of what I'm doing.

Linux still has a long way to go improving usability and user experience, as well as improving the generally poor quality of Linux desktop software.

I really like Linux. I use it daily, and I would like it to succeed. I hope that the things I've mentioned are improved to bring it up to par with newer versions of OS X and Windows.

That was the first solution I had for #1. I'm currently at the following, but I think there has to be a better one because it's not clear that it would be possible.

G places the amulet in his safe, attaches his padlock and locks it with his key, then sends it to K, keeping his key. K receives G's safe, attaches his own padlock in addition to G's (there is a "large clasp", no mention of how large or how many padlocks it could support) and sends it back to G without sending his key. G removes his own padlock, and sends the chest back. K removes his padlock and has the amulet.