Precisely as many angels as there are whole numbers, or exactly as many as the quantity of numbers you can count between 0 and 1 (0.5, 0.2341, etc).

The original context of the question was more about if angels and the afterlife were physically manifest or intangible, and early thinking about how infintesimals work.

You’re talking systemic change. A lawsuit doesn’t need to cause systemic change to be worth it for the person who was wronged.

The justice system isn’t always about correcting grand social inequities. Sometimes it’s literally just conflict resolution and balancing things out. If I break my neighbor’s fence, the judge isn’t going to try to bankrupt me or have me give money as a punishment to keep me from breaking other fences. They’re going to have me pay for fixing my neighbors fence because that’s what’s fair.

If your goal is to hurt the business, there are certainly better ways than the justice system. If your goal is for them to pay for the damage they did, the justice system is pretty much the only game in town.

That doesn’t really sound like an argument that it’s frivolous, it sounds like an argument about why the company shouldn’t need to pay much. What if the onions weren’t obvious? I don’t know if they put their onions in a sauce, in the bun or something else.

It’s entirely plausible that lifting the bun would have revealed the onions, even most likely. I wouldn’t, however, say that the concept of difficult to spot onions is so unreasonable as to say the case is frivolous.

I’d be curious why you think it’s frivolous. Why shouldn’t people use a lawsuit when another hurts them? The civil court system is literally there for disagreements and “you hurt me, make it right”.

I know it’s not actually a unit change, but in my head there’s a resistance to changing the scale.

If one sign says 5km, I expect the next sign to say 0.5km, not 500m.

Just for the record, other people haven’t necessarily seen other comments you’ve made. Acting indignant about that is frustrating.

What’s callous indifference is the company having an attitude that allergy safety is too much work, not thinking you should vote with you wallet.

A lawsuit is part of voting with your wallet. More specifically, giving them a financial incentive to take food safety more seriously.

I seriously doubt the guy is going to go back to either restaurant, so voting with his wallet and not giving them money for a burger is done, and likely doesn’t cover the costs he incurred as a result of their error.

When is a lawsuit appropriate if not after a business decides to cut corners and hurts you?

What argument do you think the lawyers would make? A food establishment is supposed to be able to safely handle food. He requested food without an ingredient for health reasons and they agreed. Then they failed at food handling and he got sick.

It’s a civil case, so the result can be a divided share of the blame. Something also tells me that they won’t want to make the argument “no reasonable person would have any expectations that we got their order right”.

Having a lawyer on retainer doesn’t mean you’re going to win, it just means you expect enough lawsuits to justify it. Recall the “absurd” McDonald’s hot coffee case that 1) they lost despite having a lot of lawyers, and 2) wasn’t absurd except through the lens of our society tending to label anyone suing a company as some combination of foolish and greedy.

And that’s why it’s fair to sue them. What you’re describing is callous indifference to the well-being of others that has caused demonstrative harm.

I think everyone agrees on what the fast food place is thinking. The issue is that that line of reasoning is dangerous and has legal penalties.

Think of it with “hand washing” and “fecal coliform bacteria” instead. “It’s too expensive to train our workers to wash their hands after pooping, and most wouldn’t anyway because we don’t pay them enough to care” just isn’t a defense when someone gets sick as a result.

That’s interesting. I never really noticed it but I’m not a fan of changing units. Whatever the “base unit” is for something is what I’ll use, even if it crosses the order of magnitude threshold.
Metric always gets decimal though, and sae units get fractions.

I’ve gotten myself switched to metric for kitchen weights and volume, and for small distances in projects I’m working on.
I’ll buy a 1/2 pound of meat, and then measure out 200 grams, with 100 ml of stock and 0.5 grams of something-small-i-cant-think-of-for-an-example-recipie.
Saying 500 milligrams feels wrong. So does asking for 1000 ml of pop though, since that’s the “wrong unit”.

I think there’s something baked into the American brain that says unit conversion is a source of error and should be avoided. Converting from 1 mile to 2640 feet is obviously gonna cause issues.

As for the fractions, I think that’s because sae units developed in a context where division by whole numbers was helpful, and metric was designed so that division by 10 was consistent and predictable.
Nothing intrinsically wrong with fractional units, other than 1/3 meter being a less reasonable number of centimeters than the inches in 1/3 yard.

I like a combination there. I want a diagram of the parts and how they fit, and a short video of installation or removal. Just like a picture describes a physical scene better than words, a video describes a changing physical scene better than a picture.

I still want text describing the steps of the process and a diagram showing what it should look like when I’ve done it right, I just also want someone to show me how to actually execute the tricky bit.

I ran into a small series of videos on repairing camcorders that actually delivered the video content appropriately. Basically no talking (I think at one point they poke the broken thing and make an “eh?” Noise to indicate you should pay attention to that). Shows the thing, shows the problem, showed removing the part, showed fixing it, and then putting it back.

In my experience visual modes of communication work better for conveying visual information. Describing how you should position yourself for doing a task is harder than just showing a picture from a few angles. Likewise, describing how something moves is easier with an video because you can see it moving.

Unfortunately, a lot of people aren’t looking to make the thing they’re making efficient, but to keep you there longer for engagement. Text is easy to skip around in, so verbose text describing what could be a 30 second video isn’t as effective. Inflating something that would be a four minute read on history or something into a video gives something harder to skim and still get information out of, and it’s way longer.

I’ve been told it ranges from “it’s a quick pinch”, through “that’s just the way it is” to “we could give a numbing shot, but it would be just as uncomfortable and make this take longer so there’s no point”.

As a man looking in from the outside, women’s reproductive healthcare has a level of dismissiveness around pain that makes the dumbest machismo look quaint. There’s the male doctors who just dismiss women’s pain, and the female doctors who know and just “that’s how it is” it. And then the one 50 year old obstetrics doctor in the country who understands the balance of “childbirth intrinsically hurts” and “we can manage the hell out of pain if we actually do our jobs” who gets to enter a room for 30 seconds, implicitly convey that they’re a saint and perfect human being and then immediately get paged to perform emergency surgery for a car accident involving multiple pregnant women, at least in our experience.

That last bit is the only exaggeration. I’m sure there’s actually two or three doctors like her per state. The rest is true.

Dismissiveness towards women’s pain is upsettingly common in healthcare. From plain old sexism (a woman’s 7/10 is a mans 4/10 because women are sensitive) to women’s symptoms manifesting differently than men’s (women’s heart attacks don’t present the same as men’s, and differences in abdominal anatomy means there’s more ways for pain to mask itself as coming from somewhere else.), the end result is that I can’t think of a women I know and have talked to about it who hasn’t laughingly referenced a doctor dismissing their pain and ordering a pregnancy test.

Well gross. I had only known they got as far as the civil defense force, not that they were actually drafting for combat roles.

We do tend to do tales of tragedy though. She was the victim on two different counts, as well as being the hero (recruited as a child soldier, and defending against hostile invasion. Heroic for shooting Nazis).

Depicting someone defending against the bad guys while being taken advantage of by the good guys and meanwhile shooting pedophile Nazis feels like a shoe in.

Also, it wasn’t technically a war crime at the time. The conventions around not using child soldiers are shockingly recent. Was still a bad thing to do, but only by modern standards.
We also tend to glorify war crime stories depressingly often, so I’m not sure that point even stands.

I don’t know how often discussions of the issues with child soldiers focus on discussions of historical instances, since caring at all is a relatively modern phenomenon, but I don’t think I’ve heard people speak positively of it.
I don’t think the US used child soldiers though, even in the home defense category the ones who did did.
To my knowledge neither axis nor allies engaged in the coercive type of child military service most condemned today.

I don’t think anyone is on the pro-child soldier side of things like you seem to be implying. Like all bad things there’s a gradient. Abducting children, giving them drugs and guns and using them as canon fodder is far worse than equipping them as part of a civil defense force, which is worse than allowing enlistment at 16 rather than 18.

You know that people speaking out against child soldiers aren’t condemning the children, right? They’re condemning the people who take advantage of them.

That’s sort of why most criticism is directed towards warlords and drug cartels.

Really wasn’t a situation that needed race injected into it, particularly when no one was saying that white child soldiers are somehow okay.

Could also store our bools as floats.

00111111100000000000000000000000 is true and 10111111100000000000000000000000 is negative true.

Has the fun twist that true & false is true and true | false is false .

But only if you really mean it. If not, it’s a syntax error and the compiler will know.

Sounds like a compiler problem to me. :p

I set all 8 bits to 1 because I want it to be really true.