Checked exceptions give you, essentially, syntactic sugar for handling just a few kinds of exceptions and re-throwing the rest.
It's useful when there are one or two error cases you want to retry or handle specially, but you want to just barf any other error up the stack. It's a specific use case but it's prevalent.
The downside is that sugar can only separate your error conditions by Java type. If everything is just an Exception, you'll have to use sort out your error cases in code.
By the sound of it, that's more like syntactic salt, or maybe syntactic thallium - `else { throw error; }` seems much simpler by comparison.
Being able to know what exceptions can possibly be thrown at a given point is useful, but seems like a problem better solved through static analysis than by requiring annotations.
They didn't try very hard to train this system. It wasn't even a prototype.
- In the excerpt, Scharre describes a week during which DARPA calibrated its robot’s human recognition algorithm alongside a group of US Marines. The Marines and a team of DARPA engineers spent six days walking around the robot, training it to identify the moving human form. On the seventh day, the engineers placed the robot at the center of a traffic circle and devised a little game: The Marines had to approach the robot from a distance and touch the robot without being detected.
> Capturing in this game is a little bit goofy. Basically, if your piece overlaps the opponent's piece it is captured, and you cannot move past the first piece you overlap.
> One interesting side effect of this is that you can capture multiple pieces at once. :)
Which way is "past"? Can only knights milti-kill, since they can "jump" past the first point of contact?
Hmmm from testing it on the replit site someone posted, you can actually move through the first point of contact. I set up a case where my queen was protected by a pawn and used a bishop to take both pieces.
It makes sense if you substitute "recognizes" for "sees". Westinghouse (well, Cameco/Brookfield Renewable) recognizes what a disruptive tech this could be, whereas others have overlooked it, maybe?
The balloon would probably move toward the front when accelerating and toward the back when the bus slows, if it moved at all.
It helps (me) to imagine an air bubble in a sealed, nearly-full fish tank on that same accelerating bus. The heavier water gets "flung" harder away from the direction of acceleration, and the bubble gets pushed out of the way in the opposite direction. Same principle.
