Yea, this. GOTO is not neccessarily a bad thing. It's a thing. More popular codebases (mostly lower level) use GOTOs than people think. It can be handy in rare cases when you are in control and using GOTO won't actually hurt readability / predictability.

It's just that it's really easy to fuck up when using GOTO so you might as well just not at all (especially when you are not an expert on how things tend to work with it).

Same can be applied to other commonly accepted opinions, like using "eval"-type commands.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

We don't call it 2d we call it flat.

Flat is a concept. That concept is easier to explain using a 2d method.

Flat does not mean 2d. Flat means, in this case, the "thickness" of the universe is so small in relation to the width and length. Like a piece of paper. Paper has a "thickness" like 2mil or .07mil. Some paper is super thin, like tracing paper, and some a bit thicker, like construction paper but its all flat and 3d.

Edits for clarity.

Can you offer more background on this?

How did the situation come to pass?

It depends.

A company may offer different classes of shares, so not all shares are 1 vote per share. A person with 75% of the shares could conceivably have less than 50% of the vote (or they could have more than 75%).

Let's just assume the question means to ask if a single person had a majority of the votes, could the be removed from the board? They could certainly resign of their own accord. Also, if they committed some sort of criminal act that prohibits them from serving on the board, they would be removed (though this isn't really removing the person so much as the law mandating it). Otherwise, there's not much else that can be done other than try to talk the individual into selling their shares / resigning.

That said, different countries have special laws about owning large portions of publicly traded companies that complicate matters.

Space isn't flat in the sense that it is flat like a piece of paper (i.e., it only has two dimensions), space is flat (maybe? we're not %100 sure) in the sense that it isn't a closed curve.

Think about it this way. On a curved object, like the surface of the earth, you can walk along the equator, turn 90 degrees, walk to the north pole, turn 90 degrees again, walk down to the equator, and turn 90 degrees again - tracing out a triangle with 90 degree corners. But that's not standard "flat" geometry, because triangles in that system can't have all 90 degree corners - it only works in a curved, closed system like a globe. On a curved coordinate system, parallel lines - like lines of longitude - eventually meet. (They all converge at the north and south poles.)

The universe could be like this. It could be a closed system that curves in one direction or another. But some data suggests that this isn't the case and parallel lines in space will never meet, just like they don't in two dimensional "flat" geometry.

China has a policy of "forced organ harvesting" where the organs of executed prisoners are made available. There's speculation that many executions are the direct result of a demand for organs, and I'm using the term "speculation" very generously.

This gets asked every week. Flat doesn't mean 2D in that context. Flat means "normal space" where parallel lines stay parallel, sum of angles in a triangle is 180 degrees and so on. For example, surface of a sphere is not flat: straight lines that are parallel in one place (for example, meridians at the equator) will converge in the other. This can be generalized to 3D space.

No no, we call it flat - but flat doesn't mean 2D.

We call paper flat, but paper isn't 2D, it's 3D.

I see what you're saying, but you could have been clearer about what specifically happens only in Iran.

>Not sure if it is still on netflix

Thats what torrents are for. Thanks

"Flat" in this context means in terms of curvature. Using 2D as an example you can have a piece of paper which is 2D and flat or something like the surface of a balloon which is 2D and curved.

The problem is that, from the perspective of any beings that live on and are constrained by those 2D surfaces, the world just looks "flat" to them in both cases because any 2D beams of light are also constrained to the surface. The balloon case is curved, but it is curved through a third dimension which 2D beings cannot perceive.

Stepping back up into our 3D work, there is an open question as to whether our 3D space is "flat" or "curved" in the 3D sense. If it was curved, it would be curved through a fourth dimension which we cannot directly perceive, so how could we tell?

Stepping back down into 2D, our 2D beings could indirectly determine the curvature of their world through triangles. In the flat 2D world, any triangles they made would have angles whose sum always equals 180 degrees. But in the curved 2D world, you would be able to make triangles whose angles sum to greater than 180 degrees.

This property also works in 3D. If our universe is flat, then triangles all have angles that sum up to 180 degrees and if it is curved then they could sum up to greater than 180 degrees. By picking distant objects (such as far away stars and galaxies) and measuring the relative distances between those objects, we can calculate their angles. Within a certain margin of error, we've calculate that our universe is either flat or has a very very very very small amount of curvature.

Thank you. The 2D non-flat/3D flat were good examples.

It is way faster and cheaper if you need a kidney to just find a match online and travel to get the kidney than to wait on a donor list.

The traffickers, was the doc, there were multiple episodes and one was about the kidney trade. Not sure if it is still on netflix( I am in Canada) but it was on Netflix and you can find the episodes online

Flat doesn't mean 2-dimensional. Things can be 2-dimensional and not flat (the surface of a sphere, for example), or 3-dimensional and flat (like the space we live in appears to be). In a flat space, parallel lines stay parallel. In a non-flat space, they don't

I'm pretty sure flat in this case means it has no curves or corners. A straight line will remain straight.

Because this is who they replied to:

> In third world countries, It's totally common that a person who has no money publish in the news that he/she has a kidney for sale. It's totally legal.

And since it is not "totally legal" anywhere else, but Iran... This is the part that "only happens in Iran".

This isn't to say black market organ donations don't happen elsewhere. Legal advertising and selling of it doesn't.

[removed]

>However, there is a big difference between melting and dissolving. When a solid dissolves in a liquid, it becomes part of the liquid by bonding with the liquid molecules. This creates new bonds and making these new bonds releases energy as heat. This refunds some of the heat used to break up the solid in the first place.

This is just not correct at all.

Let's take a simple example of salt being dissolved in water.

It's kind of true that the bonds that make up the crystal lattice for salt are broken as part of the dissolving process. This occurs mostly because the sodium and chlorine are already highly ionized (the electron being shared between them is spending most of it's time around chlorine, and we tend to short hand this by calling it an Na+ and Cl- ionic bond), so separating them is relatively easy if you have something with sufficient ionic attraction (like the partial charge that water carries due to the strong electron attraction of the oxygen atom in H2O).

But new bonds are NOT created. There is hydrogen bonding, but there's no chemist in the world who would say that hydrogen bonds are a form of chemical bonding. It's a dipole-dipole attraction, similar to a Van Der Waals force but much much stronger.

Secondly, this process doesn't release energy. The process of dissolving salt in water is endothermic - that is, energy is absorbed in the process of dissolving salt into water, not released, so both the salt and the water will get slightly cooler as a result of the salt dissolving.

Tell that to Papa John.

I think you're thinking of entrapment, when a police officer coerces someone into doing something illegal and then arrests them for it. Entrapment is a court defense, not a law in the usual sense of the word. Pedophiles caught in sting operations rarely get off on entrapment defenses, because the cops in this instance aren't coercing anyone into anything--they're laying bait online and letting people come to them.

And in the case of To Catch a Predator, it's even MORE irrelevant, since non-police citizens CAN'T do entrapment. It literally only applies if the person doing it is a cop, and those on the show weren't themselves police.

[removed]