If you are using plain text and don't have access to HTML or CSS markup, you can follow the RTL character with U+200E LEFT-TO-RIGHT MARK to achieve the same effect. And even if you do have access to those things, using U+200E ensures that operations that strip markup (like copy-paste) don't break your text.
Again, if you are busy dying, you (or, more likely, the bystander who calls EMS on your behalf) do not have time to check how much the bill will be, or who has the best response time to your location at that moment, or the best equipment, or the best training.
I think the current leadership in Tehran is pragmatic enough to want to avoid that. Of course, the longer this drags on, the more likely they are to be replaced by hard-liners
> In most languages (Java, Go, C#, Rust, Zig, OCaml, etc.) the process is reversed: you take a profiler to try and find allocations (usually in loops that happen millions of times). Then you go and eliminate or minimize the allocations.
This isn't fully correct. In Zig, the common pattern is that any function which allocates accepts an explicit allocator parameter; if you don't pass one explicitly, you don't get any heap allocations.
Rust doesn't make things quite that visible. But, if you restrict yourself to the standard library and crates designed with this in mind, allocations are usually not too hard to find. And you can always use `#![no_std]` without `alloc` if you want to be sure. Neither language is ever going to insert a heap allocation if it's not somewhere in the source.
> You would have to assume that every type of diagnosis instrument has infinite clarity and is always correct to be confused in this case.
There's a difference between 99.9% clarity and 50% clarity. Even if neither exactly equals 100%, it's understandable that a layperson would expect different language between them
It's especially hard when you have a combination of many government programs at all levels (federal, state, local, many different kinds of taxes, many different kinds of welfare). Even if every individual program uses a gradient, it's still possible that summing all the programs together leads to a >100% effective marginal tax rate.
If you read the article up to the point where they describe the actual decision, it's quite different from the breathless outrage at the top. The reasoning is:
- In order to receive federal funds, state correctional institutions need to agree to certain standards, including the religious liberty protections.
- This agreement is between the federal government and the state institution; the prison guards and officials, in their personal capacity, never agreed to it.
- Therefore, the officials cannot be held liable in their personal capacity for violating the agreement.
- Notably, none of this shields the Louisiana Department of Corrections as an institution from legal liability.
