Use the right tool for the job. You can use both and it doesn't make the code any more or less readable. Using one only certainly does limit your abilities to write clean code and in the case of this pattern encourages some nasty shit.
Parameter count denotes logical branches like an if statement.
If you're passing in more than two to three Params a parameter object quickly becomes desireable.
Forcing parameter objects for one or two parameter functions seems.. stupid to say the least.
Boolean parameters are extremely rare if you're code is clean. They're essentially a code smell that indicate someone has dropped a hack in the middle of your function and handed in a parameter to toggle the behavior on in their one case against all others.
You're much better off writing a new function that triggers the new behavior and wraps a call to the old one.
Similar story for object returns, if you need to return an object that's fine but to be honest destructuring an object straight away makes code pretty hard to read in a lot of cases (not all).
For returning two parameters I'm pretty confused about the code, it's likely breaking single responsibility and signalling sideeffects.
I honestly had no idea, I just noticed the logo being not green in the surrounding countries. I haven't put a foot in any of their stores for over 15 years now
We have almost 8 billion people on the planet, we absolutely need to "focus" on every possible solution that may work.
There are currently over 100 proposed solutions that do actually add up to more than enough sequestration but the conversation needs to change and the disparaging whataboutism needs to end.
If people get apathetic or nihilism sets in nobody will be able to make the changes required.
You can’t use every approach as iron seeding and this both do the same thing and the oceans are finite.
So this isn’t a 1% solution, it’s not even a 0.1% soliton it might be a 0.01% solution. “50,000 tonnes of tephra – a bulk carrier vessel’s worth – offshore could sequester 2750 tonnes of atmospheric carbon dioxide. This, they said, equates to a cost of around £43 per tonne of carbon dioxide sequestered” assuming absolutely zero CO2 was released in the process.
Bulk carriers are quite efficient and could move 50,000 tons ~= 0.4 tons of CO2 per mile in a straight line. Which sounds fine except you can’t simply dump all 50,000 tons 1 mile off shore and expect anything useful to happen. If you can dump on average 50 tons per mile you just released ~400 tons to sequester 2750. And that’s assuming it somehow gets loaded and unloaded without releasing any extra CO2.
You're ignoring that science improves and leads to further discovery.
It's perfectly fine if 0.00000001% of the population spends their lives on something that achieves nothing if a few of these lead to further developments.
0.00000001% of the global population is less than one person.
Which is kind of the issue, we need a significant fraction of the global workforce to solve climate change. Inefficiency is useless because we lack the economic capacity to solve climate change inefficiently.
Neither the peacful capitol protest or the thousand days of violent riots in Portland lead to significant upticks in corona virus spreading, but some spreading did happen.
And to hammer the point home, the spin is consistently and ubiquitously slanted against anything right leaning. Its way past confirmation bias, and yeah, one could argue that the right has its own media wing, except right leaning sources have unilaterally been defined as "unreliable" and are collusively excluded from all manner of popular information sources - stackexchange, wikipedia, default news/politics subreddits...
Reality's supposed liberal bias is an illusion, concocted by a decentralized network of activists who have quietly infiltrated all of our institutions and suppress right leaning opinions with what amounts to bullying. Don't believe me? Try editing any remotely political article on wikipedia with anything but the "approved" narrative carried by lefwting sources with a suspicious consistency.
There is more than enough uncertainty in the reporting of contemporary events for news agencies to disagree while remaining factual; yet, suspiciously, the set of "reliable" sources are nearly always consistent in their interpretation of events and the language they choose to slyly inject political bias into their articles.
Objective journalism is dead, and was long ago replaced by increasingly naked political activism. Sure, it's impossible to be truly objective, but that's not an excuse to constantly manufacture one sided propaganda. Apparently people are so hung up on diversity of skin color/gender/sexuality that they've lost sight of the entire point, diversity of thought.
They should really label their packages accordingly so I can differentiate between cagefree packaging and free range worker conditions. I don't mind paying a little more for free range if that's what it takes.
Bigger wings means heavier wings, and greater torque needed to actuate the wings, which means more power needed as well as greater stresses involved, all of which means even more mass, which eats into your payload budget.
