Pure functions should be referentially transparent; you should be able to replace them with whatever value they evaluate to without changing the semantics of your code.
Throwing is referentially impure: what value do you get from calling x => throw new RuntimeException()?
Instead, functional languages prefer to return a tagged union of the value or the error.
Functional languages typically have type inference, so the type signatures are entirely optional. I haven't looked that deeply at unison, but I'd be entirely unsurprised if it had global type inference and if all or most type signatures were optimal.
It's less that you have to declare something can do IO or throw an exception, and more that you're calling something from the standard library that does IO or throws an exception.
Most stuff does neither. There's a type level distinction between normal, regular pure code, and impure effectful code, so it's easy to tell from the type signature whether a function is pure or not.
That would be "cut homelessness in half" or "cut the number of homeless people in half". That's very different from "cut all homeless people in half", which would be bisecting each homeless person. This is clearly a joke about conservatives being heartless monsters, right?
Or is this a dialectal grammar difference between UK and US English?
7 million is "retiring doctor" or "retiring Google engineer" rich.
It's generally considered safe to withdraw 4% of your nest egg the first year, and adjust that for inflation moving forwards. $7 million can sustain a $280k/year retirement. That's certainly rich, but there's a world of difference between that and a billionaire. A billionaire can safely spend $40 million a year.
These seem like they can circle for rather longer than a rocket could.
There's a bit of a difference, tactically, between a rocket with 2 min of fuel vs a prop plane with 5 hours of fuel.
Really?
Conservatives don't actually want to murder homeless people by sawing them in two? But killing homeless people is a great idea?
I'm not sure that it does. All the articles I can find word it as something like "has a range of 710 kilometers (441 miles) on a sunny day.", without actually explaining it. I'm assuming that's going from 100% charge to 0% charge, plus all the range gained by charging during the day.
They don't actually say anywhere I can find how quickly it charges.
Also, looking up some other articles about it, apparently there's a bunch of extra fold-out solar panels in the trunk
If you wanted maximum range, you'd start before dawn, drive most of your battery away, park somewhere all day to use that solar awning for all its worth, then continue driving at dusk.
It's not that it's far-fetched. It's just impractical. Solar panels don't really generate that much power per square foot. Charging a car with just the roof can take days.
One model of solar roofed electric car on the market recharges ~20 miles per day with the roof.
Charging stations are a way better idea for road trips in electric cars, as is plugging the car in overnight. This is great for a remote hermit, but more interesting for the hack value than a practical option.
Race used to be commonly used as a synonym of ethnicity - it isn't rare to see references to the German race, the Celtic race, Greek race, etc.
Better yet, STAR voting or 3-2-1.
Hell - my next-door neighbors have horses in their backyards and so do three houses directly across the street, and I've never seen one of these. Everyone has 150s or 250s.
Note, though
It's a bit difficult to distinguish a burned body in a kibbutz as a civilian vs off duty military until there's a forensic identification of its identity.