exceptotron

And yet more victim blaming. “He should have known better.”

He took a what anyone, even a medical professional, would consider a reasonable risk. He had an outlier of a bad outcome. Now he realizes that his understanding of the risk, even as a medical professional, was perhaps incorrect. And hence he shares his experience, with a warning. And the response is almost uniformly that somehow this is his fault, and anyway drugs are good mmkay, and also correlation is not causation maybe he’s just an overacting ninny.

The reason many people have a flawed assessment of the risks of psychedelics is exactly the over hyping of good outcomes and victim blaming / discounting of bad outcomes that we often see on places like HN.

Certainly I would have expected the orbit to go higher the faster the planets moved? Is that not the usual effect of increasing speed?

I wonder if it’s using some derived equation for the motion of the planets (re: their orbit) that assumes positive mass, so that part of the simulation understands negative mass but part does not?

Induction cooktops are.

Now this is a disingenuous redefinition of scam.

I agree that, if you are working with checked exceptions, that’s certainly better than adding garbage to your interface.

But for many types of checked exception you just end up wrapping the underlying exception in a foo exception anyway.

I think you are right: if you are using exceptions for error handling, of errors you expect people to actually deal with, this is currently a reasonable (if painful) option to ensure exhaustive analysis of returns — which most people agree is a good thing these days I think, what with mainstream popularization of options etc.