Please tell me what exactly a helmet in a car will do for you, unless you are travelling well over 200 miles per hour? Seatbelts already hold the torso in place, preventing one from slamming their head into the steering wheel, dashboard, or windshield, and the airbags already absorb the energy and arrest the unrestrained body parts, such as the head.

You would have to be travelling fast enough to outpace the airbags, which typically deploy at around 200 miles per hour. You wanna know why professional race car drivers wear helmets? Because they don’t have airbags.

Bikes dont have airbags, restraints, or a large cage of structural metal surrounding them. If you are on a bike, your only protection is what you are wearing. With that in mind, wouldn’t you want to wear something to protect yourself when moving at higher speeds? Even a speed of 10mph can be fatal if you fall off and hit your head on the ground. You cannot fall off or out of a car if you are properly wearing your seatbelt, and the airbags and structure of the vehicle are your immediate protections.

Basically, helmets in cars aren’t mandatory and don’t make sense to make mandatory, because there are already safety precautions in cars. Bikes, whether manual or motorized, do not offer these or any protections.

At least it’s not “the narwhal bacons at midnight” shit

Yeah, JS always seemed like the red-headed stepchild of modern languages. I’d be curious to know if other ECMAScript languages like JScript are as, eh, “quirky”, suggesting that the ECMA spec is the source of the quirkiness, or if JavaScript itself is the one making silly decisions. Technically, I mostly work with Google’s AppScript when I use ECMAScript stuff, but I’m fairly certain AppsScript is based off of JavaScript instead of directly based on the ECMA spec, so I don’t think it’s separate enough for me to draw a conclusion there.

It doesn’t have to be the default to be built in, tho. It could be an overloaded function, having the “default” be the typical convert-to-string sorting, and an overloaded function that allows to specify a type.

It’s just such a common thing, wanting to sort a list by different types, that I’m surprised there hasn’t been an official implementation added like this. I get that it a simple “fix” to make, but I just think that if it’s that simple yet kind of obscure (enough that people are still constantly asking about it) there should be an official implementation, rather than something you have build yourself.

Right, but you have to make that comparator yourself, it’s not a built-in part of the language. The only built-in comparator converts values to strings and compares them in code units orders.

Also, that technically isnt type-safe, is it? If you threw a string or a NaN at that it would fail. As far as I knew, type safe means that a function can handle type errors itself, rather than throwing an exception. So in this case the function would automatically convert types if it was type-safe to prevent an unhandled exception.

I think the main shortcoming here is that there isnt a way to specify the type to sort as, instead you have to write the function to compare them as numbers yourself. If it’s such a simple implementation, why isn’t it officially implemented? Why isn’t there a sortAs() that takes two args, the input list, and a Type value? Check every element matches the type and then sort, otherwise return a Type Error.

LMAO the dude got debunked off his own link

Well, clocks are just mechanical sundials. Before clockwise, there was sunwise (or deosil), and clocks’ movements are based off of the movement of a shadow across a sundial.

No, my comment doesnt read like that at all. You literally had to insert the “like consoles do” in order to interpret what I said the way you did.

Also you are 100% projecting about me being an asshole. I was absolutely lighthearted and carefree about the situation, and you people interpret it as being vitriolic. That, my friend, is a problem with YOU, not with me. Maybe go touch some grass?

You think your shitty, incorrect, and idiotic interpretation of my comment is “the only logical way any human with English skills could possibly interpret it”? I literally already explained before how one would have to cherry pick that one sentence from the entire comment chain, disregard any other context, and have a presupposition of what I am saying to interpret it that way.

You’re the worst kind of moron, the one that thinks he’s the smart one.

Removed by mod

I absolutely DO blame someone for thinking I am talking about PC games there lol… you would have to 1. Only read that one sentence out my single comment, none of the previous comments or the rest of my comment, 2. Misunderstand the premise of the sentence, and 3. Apply a preconception that I would be talking about PC games.

I dont care that someone misinterpreted what I said, and I dont think it’s a big deal, but if you are going to make a call-out comment on someone you should probably apply reading comprehension well enough to actually understand the comment you are replying to, or else the confusion in the situation is just going to compound. If someone doesnt understand then they should ask for clarification first, like I did when I asked what they were on about, and then I clarified my original comment to clear the confusion.

What are you on about? I never said or even alluded to PC games not having settings… its pretty clear and obvious that I am talking about consoles when I mention consoles gaining a particular feature.

As a PC enthusiast my main gripe has always been the lack of choice over performance options. I want the choice between higher fidelity or higher framerates. The new generations of consoles have included this option, and it is awesome. I also like how newer generation hardware has been able to run the older games it is compatible with at higher fidelity AND higher framerates, bringing the hardware improvements to those older games and increasing their lifespan/playability.

Hm, I see how their comment can be interpreted that way, and it definitely makes more sense like that. They worded it extremely poorly tho, and thus is left pretty ambiguous. I think it would have been much more clear if they just spelled out “conscription” again instead of resorting to the pronoun.

That said, since I do agree with your interpretation I will edit my comment to reflect that

Cool so I can come in to your house and steal all your shit, beat up your children, and shoot your dog, and you aren’t allowed to fight back because if it was justified, you wouldn’t need to?

EDIT: I seem to have misinterpreted the comment, as you appear to be referring to conscription being unnecessary rather than the fighting. Taking the whole context of the comment supports that, but taking only the context of the final sentence makes it appear that you are saying “if fighting is justified you dont need to fight” rather than “if fighting is justified, conscription is unnecessary”