There may be a need for additional information, there just isn’t any in these responses. Using a basic JSON schema like the Problem Details RFC provides a standard way to add that information if necessary. Error codes are also often too general to have an application specific meaning. For example, is a “400 bad request” response caused by a malformed payload, a syntactically valid but semantically invalid payload, or what? Hence you put some data in the response body.
This should be done with font ligatures, not replacing character combinations with other characters that can’t be typed normally
No, it isn’t
You’re making assumptions about the control flow in a hypothetical piece of code…
What you’re saying is “descriptive method names aren’t a substitute for knowing how the code works.” That’s once again just a basic fact. It’s not “hiding,” it’s “organization.” Organization makes it easier to take a high level view of the code, it doesn’t preclude you from digging in at a lower level.
No, your argument is equally applicable to all methods. The idea that a method hides implementation details is not a real criticism, it’s just a basic fact.
No, not “almost every modern developer thinks inheritance is just bad.” They recognize that “prefer composition over inheritance” has merit. That doesn’t mean inheritance is itself a bad thing, just a situational one. The .NET and Java ecosystems are built out of largely object-oriented designs.
You realize this is just an argument against methods?
It’s possible to have an equiangular quadrilateral, i.e. whose sides are geodesics (the analogue of “straight line” on a sphere). The Gauss-Bonnet theorem implies their total interior angle is greater than 2pi, so four right angles can’t work.
Here’s an interactive demo of quadrilaterals on the sphere: https://geogebra.org/m/q83rUj8r
Notice that each side is a segment of a great circle, i.e. a circle that divides the sphere in half. That’s what it means for a path to be a geodesic on the sphere.
Good point. Four equal angles, then, although they will each have to be greater than 90 degrees.
That’s the “naughty” guy from Courage the Cowardly Dog
It’s not correct, and your knowledge of the answers has nothing to do with my explanation.
None of the answers are correct. If the answer were 25%, then it couldn’t be 25% because there’s a 50% chance of picking it at random, which contradicts our supposition. Similarly the answer cannot be 50% because there’s a 25% chance of picking it. The answer isn’t 60% because there isn’t a 60% chance of picking it.
Which is wrong, because you incorrectly assumed there was one correct answer
Well, we knew he was a shitbag beforehand, so that’s not really what’s in question
Being suitable for human consumption doesn’t mean it’s not also suitable for playing a role in a more efficient food chain
Going to almost certainly be less than 1. Moving further up the food chain results in energy losses. Those fish are going to use energy for their own body and such
For sure, which is why I said “another food source would be needed.” I had in mind something like the wild-caught fish being processed into something useful as part of a more efficient food chain, e.g. combined with efficiently-farmed plant material.
Moreover there’s high mortality rates inside of fish farms for fish themselves.
I don’t have any context on the other pros and cons of fish farming, so definitely not arguing whether they’re a net positive or not.
Status 200 for errors is common for non-REST HTTP APIs. An application error isn’t an HTTP error, the request and response were both handled successfully.