GOTO is considered an anti-pattern because it introduces non-linear control flow into a computer program - computer programs are generally written with linear control flow.

GOTO allows you to jump to any location in your program without any respect for how you got there - it's basically one-way teleportation.

Being able to teleport anywhere without respect for the structure of a given computer program allows you to do virtually anything regardless of how you got there, and, this leads to people doing a lot of weird things just because they can.

This is really the only reason why its use is considered an anti-pattern, and there's nothing wrong with using GOTO if you really know what you're doing.

Generally speaking you should stick with established well-known control flow semantics to make your program as easy to read as you can.

[deleted]

[removed]

Why do babies enjoy being held?

Why does someone rubbing your head or playing with your hair relax them?

There are things that are hardwired into our bodies from the time we're born and they just don't go away..

Being (lightly) smashed or squeezed is one of those things.

A weighted blanket is close enough to get a response in some people.

Others, not so much.

A weighted blanket doesn't do a whole lit for me (m) but really helps my wife's anxiety.

Because the various states of the US never exercised full sovereignty as independent countries. After leaving the UK at the beginning of the American Revolution, they banded together to create the Articles of Confederation that gave significant powers to conduct foreign relations, warfare, and control of ports to the United States. So they only ever operated with limited sovereignty. The central government was weak by design, but had clear powers that an independent country would reserve to themselves.

Wales, Scotland, England and Ireland all have a history as sovereign nations that had full control over their borders and foreign relations. They became part of the United Kingdom over a period of centuries (with all of Ireland belonging to the UK before the counties that now make up the Republic of Ireland successfully rebelled).

At first the countries were not a single entity. The UK developed after long processes, with each of them originally being different countries with the same monarch before the central governments merged. Since 1282 the heir to the English throne has been prince or princess of Wales, but it wasn't until the reign of Henry VIII that Parliament in London could pass laws for Wales.

Scotland was not conquered like Wales was, but instead a series of marriage pacts led to both England and Scotland having the same line of royal succession. The 17th Century is referred to as the Personal Union, as both kept their own laws under the same monarch. At the beginning of the 18th Century they formed a Constitutional Union as the United Kingdom, with Scotland now sending representatives to Parliament in London.

Around 1800 the British Isles were united under the United Kingdom of Great Britain (the island containing England, Scotland, and Wales) and Ireland. The government was fully centralized at that point. This was renamed the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 1922.

Recently, the United Kingdom has restored some home rule with separate Parliaments in Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland operating much as US state governments do. England still does not have a Parliament separate from the UK, although MPs from Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales do not vote on matters that only effect England.

The premise of the question is flawed. What doctor has said a baby is [https://www.brown.edu/Administration/News_Bureau/2003-04/03-099.html] born addicted to crack? After 16 years of research and more than a decade of following the development of children thought to have been at serious risk, medical experts have not identified a recognizable condition, syndrome or disorder that should merit the label “crack baby.” With no basis in science, the term serves only to stigmatize and slander children and their mothers and should be eliminated from public discourse The Eli5 can be found in [https://pbsnc.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/race-media-and-the-myth-of-the-crack-baby-video/retro-report/">this] this video which teaches "about the tone and content of cultural debates over race and the role of government during the Reagan era." And "presents a case study in how point of view and context can affect the interpretation of historical sources. By understanding how the news media encouraged panic about a national epidemic of disabled 'crack babies'. It shows "the complex factors and motives behind an incorrect account of an event by a primary source."

What do you mean "burning too little calories?" Doesn't an activity require the same amount of calories whether it's coming from food or fat reserves? Like if someone eats and runs a mile, they'll burn more calories than if they didn't eat and ran a mile? How does a human body release less caloric fuel from fat reserves than it would normally take to do something?

Howdy all, I just want to throw my hat in the ring here. I milked cows and lived in a dairy barn for 4 years. It’s hard work. And I respect the hell out of all our cows for working hard too. To answer your questions from personal and professional experience.

1. There are many different breeds of cattle, like dogs. Some are better for certain purposes. For cows that produce milk the most common is a Holstein (Typical black and white moo moo).

2. Humans have been milking cows since the very beginning of our agricultural days. Thousands of years. Over this long period of time we’ve bred cattle to produce more and more milk. During the 1900s farmers started to selectively breed cows that could produce more milk. Much more milk than a baby calf could ever hope to drink.

3. Yes we do take away the babies from their mothers, and I’ll address this at a later point. But this is done for a variety of reasons. Most certainly NOT to simply “Get more milk”. Here are some benefits to removing a calf from her mother.

Not all cows are good mothers. I’ve seen some immediately forget their babies and move straight to a food bin. Never to give a second thought. I’ve seen some babes get their heads stomped in by their moms. We take them away not only for their own safety, but also so we can give them a STANDARD of care. This includes vaccines, colostrum, warmth and blankets, and a soft bed. These are just a few benefits.

4. The boys are shipped to veal farms and that is their purpose. I understand the ethical implications, but simply there is no demand for male dairy cattle. Their meat quality is poor and we don’t need many of them for breeding purposes.

5. We keep the girls and raise them to be a part of the farm. They are fed different things depending on what kind of farm you run. Some are fed milk from the cows in the farm. Some are fed a formula. This is once again to provide a STANDARD of care. Some cows individual milk is not good for their babies, can carry immune disorders and other factors. We don’t let them nurse off the mother for a variety of reasons.

Their mouths are gross. And can easily infect mom.

Mom is much more comfortable being milked by a machine.

Letting them nurse off their own mothers will inadvertently bring down overall production. Dairy farms are a business.

6. Cows do not forever produce milk. Much like people they will “Dry off” if there is no demand for it. Milk corresponds with pregnancy, birth and raising young. A typical cow will produce milk for 250-300 days before being given a break. This is then followed by a 2-3 month dry period where they are allowed to eat, relax and prepare for birth all over again.

Just to clarify. I love cows. They fascinate me and I hold a deep respect for them. They work so hard and I know many dairy farmers who break their backs treating their girls better than themselves. Healthy happy cows produce more milk. Stress itself drops milk production like a rock and good farmers are always trying to minimize that. Bad farmers don’t stay in business long.

There are ethical concerns to this industry, like I’ve mentioned. Unlike cows it’s not black and white. It’s very grey. I’d love to keep talking about it and I can keep answering questions if people have them.

[removed]

Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):

Top level comments (i.e. comments that are direct replies to the main thread) are reserved for explanations to the OP or follow up on topic questions.

Anecdotes, while allowed elsewhere in the thread, may not exist at the top level.

If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. **If you believe it was removed erroneously, explain why using this form and we will review your submission.

If you're talking about sports teams, they're basically arbitrary. Many independent countries are split into multiple "national" teams for some sports/competitions, and sometimes multiple independent countries form a combined team. Most sports have some kind of international governing body that decides how this works, though they usually take into account the preferences of local organisations and individuals.

> even though they are part of a larger country the UK, that would not also make something like a US State a country?

The thing is, from the British perspective there is essentially the same issue. The UK is a single "state", but the US is split into multiple "states". Each country/state has its own unique political system with its own terminology, and whenever we try and talk comparatively between countries things can get a little bit confusing and vague. And it's not just the terminology - Wales is a different kind of thing from, say, Michigan, not just in the sense of what we call it, but also in the sense of how it fits into the politics and culture of the country/state of which it is part.

It is just based on the unique histories of those areas and different understandings of those terms. Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, England and the rest of the UK were historically separate countries for many years. The did not join together in the UK at the same time, and at one point, the Republic of Ireland was part of the UK but left in 1922 (after being a part of it for more than 100 years). Scotland of course has recently debated and voted on whether to leave the UK (deciding against it). Although they are still considered countries for many purposes, they also are subject to the government of Great Britain and some of the powers usually held by a country are actually held by the central government, not the governments of those separate countries. The United States initially looked like 13 countries with a loose federation ("state" can sometimes be used to mean a "country"), under the articles of confederation adopted shortly after the revolutionary war. However, the United States later adopted a constitution that gave the federal government stronger authority and took a fair amount of authority from the states that are usually associated with a country. Over time, the federal government grew in size and significance, with state governments losing much of the power they initially held. As such, the US states are now much less like countries and more like provinces of other countries, although they do have possibly more authority than typical political subdivisions.

Sure, but I'm not asking about it as a plan or practice exactly, I'm more curious about the...I dunno, mathematics? Like as I understand it, a human being consumes a certain amount of energies in the form of calories, they use that energy to function physically in a variety of ways, and any surplus they have is converted into fat and stored in the body, any deficit is covered by using those fat stores. I'm assuming I must be misinformed about that, because it seems like consuming zero calories would mean that all energy requirements would be drawn from fat stores, so as long as you still had fat stores and consumed the vitamins and minerals needed to fuel the numerous chemical reactions that a human does, you shouldn't be in any danger, but everywhere I look says that simply not eating is inherently bad for you and doesn't explain how Angus Barbieri was able to accomplish it

The country of United States is a republic. All states eventually agreed to join said republic. Things evolved differently in Europe , as certain "states" or groups refused to join under British rule .

Someone who is bi-sexual might be attracted to male presenting men and female presenting women. There are other more specific labels for someone who has an attraction to a wider range of gender (or even sex) presentations

From first paragraph on wikipedia:

> he consumed only vitamins, electrolytes, an unspecified amount of yeast (a source of all essential amino acids)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_Barbieri%27s_fast

Minecraft is honestly a pretty bad example - it's procedurally generated, so there's no "world" the game has stored beforehand, just the rules of how a world can look. Most games aren't like that though. Adventure games, shooters, RPGs, usually have hand-crafted worlds with very deliberately placed features.

And these are large. Many modern games are 10s or even >100GB in size, most of which are world files. But there are still clever tricks to keep the size smaller than it would be otherwise. Small patches of textures can be expanded to larger areas, terrain in the background can have lower resolution, and so on.

And finally, the storage density of modern electronics is just extremely high.

How does it lower the freezing temperature before the ice melts? The salt makes it melt because you are adding weight, and the salt decreases the viscosity in the chamber making it easier to 'grind', which in turn facilitates the melt process because it adds energy.

No?

[removed]

>is it because wales and scotland self-indentify as countries and we want to respect their right to do so ?

Basically.

>what is it that makes something like wales or scotland a country, even though they are part of a larger country the UK, that would not also make something like a US State a country?

Because we kind of had this whole thing about 160 years ago where we decided no state within the US would call itself a country.

Yeah, sand works well for roads for that reason - cars provide plenty of pressure for melting ice through force alone (and chunky sand gives a lot of little pressure points for cars to melt bits of ice under their tires).

But that dodges the real point here - the salt added to an ice cream maker isn’t increasing pressure to melt the ice and make the ice cream freeze faster - the salt is lowering the melting point to encourage the ice to melt faster from conduction, and thus stealing heat at a faster rate from the surrounding objects.

Sand/salt on roads is a slightly different beast. Salt is 100% better at melting ice on roads (because it does the pressure thing sand does AND lowers the freezing point) BUT salt corrodes metal. And corroding the underside of cars isn’t great. So sand is often used (I’m also from the north).

>Also isn’t it curious that humans are the only species to drink another species milk?

It's not that surprising. If you want to drink another species' milk, you have to be able to domesticate that animal. Sure, you get ants doing something vaguely similar with aphids, but when talking about mammals no other species has the capability to manage it, so they just don't have the option. At least, unless they have humans around to provide it for them. If you had a dozen intelligent mammals with civilizations similar to humans, I bet many of them would be milk drinkers. It's incredibly useful if you are a pastoralist, since it means you can get calories out of your cattle or goats without having to kill them. Useful enough that the descendants of most pastoralists still bear the genetic stamp of heavy selection in favor of milk drinking (aka, lactose tolerance into adulthood).

> And why not dog milk- or rat milk?

Obviously you are joking, but it's all about diet and volume. The whole point of dairy, from a premodern perspective, is turning grass into useful calories. Dogs don't produce a lot of milk and you can't graze them, while rats are far too small to produce usable volumes of milk.

That said, Simpsons did it

It's easier to understand something when all the pieces are next to each other in a straight line. You tell the computer to do this, then this, then all of these, then frobnicate the widgets, then pass the salt. When you see a loop, you know the computer is going to repeat what's in the loop a certain number of times, then do the stuff after the loop.

"goto" lets you tangle up the pieces as much as you like. The problem is not the word "goto" itself, but it is the fact that if you didn't create a tangled mess then you'd be able to write it without the word "goto". An otherwise straightforward program with one or two "goto"s is often still understandable, but when you have many of them, it can be hard to understand exactly what the program is doing, e.g. you might not even be able to work out how many times a certain line of code gets run.

Note that when Edgar Dijkstra wrote his famous letter "Go To Statement Considered Harmful" in 1968, structured programming with instructions like "if" and "while" were somewhat new and people weren't using them as much as they could have.

Ironically, many programmers write the exact same kind of mess with classes and methods, and think it's good because there's not a single "goto".

Not claiming to be an expert on Angus, but wiki says he lived on “tea, coffee, soda water, and vitamins”. No protein/amino acids in most vitamins, although maybe they said vitamins when they meant supplements.

The obese starvation victim was mentioned in a scientific study I read. It’s entirely possible there was a link to another paper with more details but I didn’t follow it. I just recall reading that drove home for me the importance of protein while dieting.

[deleted]