Just use unreal ?

Information is absolutely stuff.

How much does that thought cost? How much does it weigh?

Information absolutely has a cost, somebody had to create it.

Weight is just nonsense. Physical presence is not a hard requirement for value.

> Physical presence is not a hard requirement for value.

Physical presence is a requirement for stuff. Stuff has value because of the balance between supply and demand. Information that has been digitally encoded has literally infinite supply. Information only has any value in the context of imaginary property laws that impose artificial scarcity.

AI companies downloading information is not subsidizing AI companies. Imposing imaginary property law is stealing from the public domain. Everyone's public domain.

Reminds me of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_Train

Your premise is false, exceeding is not the limit, because the limit is at the behest of any of the judges; given a judge exceeds their rational, then they exceed their rational ability to limit the executive branches power

And if the judgement is in error, it will be appealed and overruled by a higher court. This is how our system works. We're only seeing it as a "problem" lately because the past few administrations have leaned increasingly heavily on unilateral executive action rather than legislation as the constitution designs, and as we'd been doing successfully for the previous 200 years.

I'm not sure it's true that recent presidents have relied more on EOs---at least the numbers suggest that recent presidents have actually relied less on EOs than many of their predecessors (https://www.statista.com/statistics/1125024/us-presidents-ex...). Now, it may be the case that the scope of EOs has grown, so that they implement bigger policy initiatives. I'd be curious if anyone has done that analysis. It might also be that rising partisanship has led to more exaggerated reactions to EOs by the opposition, making it seem like a bigger problem than it actually is.

What penalty is there for continuous “errors”. Let’s say a judge was known to always apply an injunction for a certain party, can they be penalized or removed?

If I become biased or incompetent at my job I’m eventually get fired but do judges ever?

Judges can be impeached

Yeah but can they be sued for rulings they made in their capacity as a judge? Could we throw in jail Supreme court justices for making the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision if they were still alive?

One can find an opinion at the ready but to be hysterical with opinions is a matter of distance.

Understand the problem...

That is actually his step 1. Step 0 might be write down the problem as stated - but in his writing step 1 is really, "structure the problem." Of course you might have structured it wrong, that is in part where step 2 comes in.

I’m learning 3d and confused about what to focus on for hard modeling. I just wanna make cool realistic spaceships. Should I do cad or blender?

Perhaps Blender w/ CADsketcher?

https://www.cadsketcher.com/

Or maybe NASA's Vehicle Sketch Pad?

https://software.nasa.gov/software/LAR-17491-1

Since I assume that spaceships are more an artistic thing, go for Blender.

The only thing worse than shitty design is when the shitty design changes each time you use it.

Yikes…

Okay, so what's the significance of it and what's the boon?

Surprised so little public forth's implement it.

Decades ago, a closure in Forth was especially innovative with DOES>:

  : COUNTER
    CREATE ,
    DOES> DUP 1 SWAP +! @ ;
  0 COUNTER PK
  PK .  \ => 1
  PK .  \ => 2

A semi-equivalent in Javascript is:

  const counter = init => {
    let x = init;
    return () => { x += 1; return x; };
  };
  const pk = counter(0);
  console.log(pk());  // => 1
  console.log(pk());  // => 2

All the most common Forth I know implement CREATE DOES>

What’s funny, is that I used to know how it works, now any time I come across these kind of articles I get more and more confused and further away from understanding. It’s like reading those convoluted explanations of what a monad is.

It implements defining words ie. Additional compiler words.

It does this by doing something now, and later (you could read create does> as now later>)

So for

: CONSTANT CREATE , >DOES @ ;

This makes the defining word CONSTANT, which when run (now) compiles the next word

So CONSTANT myvar will compile myvar. Myvar, when run (later) will get it's value and push it to the datastack.

It only briefly goes into what it does, this article goes into how it's done for a particular implementation.

Even EForth under Sublex/Muxleq implements it.

TIL https://github.com/howerj/subleq/ https://esolangs.org/wiki/Muxleq