As others have show, you can use nested conditionals, status variables, and/or other means to avoid using Goto.

Yes, conditionals, case: statements, and similar constructs are really "goto" statements under the hood, but they are generally easier for humans to read and maintain and easier for compilers to optimize than a goto statement.

Which of the options listed below should you use? In many cases that will depend on the "coding style" of the developer or development team rather than any minor differences in "technical merit."

OK fine do it this way if you are using BASIC or some other language where GOTO is a common idiom.

But in most common procedural languages something akin to

while (true) do print("FART\n") ; done

or

do print("FART\n") until (false)

is easier to read, if only because you don't have to remember that lines can have labels.

If as you suggest the quality of therapists is all over the map, getting a "statistically significant representative sample" may require many more data points than you could get by asking /.

Not to mention that people who reply here will be self-selected and unlikely to be "representative" even if you were able to get enough data points.

Unfortunately, there are many things in this world that you have to decide whether to "buy in" to them or not long before you know if it's likely to be "worth the money" or not.

Ah, you must mean the basement restrooms of MSNBC and Fox News. I never hear anyone talking about those places on the air or at the water-cooler, and it makes you wonder what is really happening down there.

There is a very limited market for "dumb" TVs that "smart" TVs don't fill just as well.

That is, almost everyone who thinks they want a "dumb" TV will choose a "smart" one if the price of the "dumb" one is even $1 more than the "smart" one.

There are some markets where a "smart" TV is just not an option. Any location where policy prohibits any device that's even capable of being connected to a network, such as prisons, come to mind. Another place is where the "smart" devices are perceived as being more likely to be abused/vandalized/stolen than a "dumb" one, such as hotel rooms in high-theft-risk locations. However, most of these users would be perfectly happy with a tuner-less monitor rather than a television, thereby making the question about "dumb TELEVISIONS" irrelevant to them.

I don't know if Debian does or not (I'm going to assume not based on your tone), but at least Debian's customers have everything they need (except maybe skill and time) to fix it themselves.

Microsoft customers? Not so much.

I bet the "valid random sample" didn't include any projects from the Obfuscated C Code Contest.

"Microsoft Does Not Fix Critical Remotely Exploitable Windows Root-Level Design Bug"

To all Windows Server 2003 users still out there: Oh wait...

Or even worse:

For the last several years there's been a critical no-workaround vulnerability that even the vendor didn't know about. Oh wait...

Just looking at dollars and cents, there's no way you can make a blanket statement like that. Every city's housing and rental market is unique and the market today isn't the same as it will be a year from now. The same city that is "better to rent in" today could easily become "better to buy in next year" or vice-versa, while the city a few states over could easily be the other way around both now and a year from now.

There's also the issue of how much house you need. I know of one city that in the mid-2000s at least was better for buyers if you wanted a 3-bedroom suburban home but better for renters if you needed a 1-bedroom accommodation. At least it was after you added in the "volatility-risk cost" of buying a condo (the condo market was much more volatile than the single-family-home market in that city, meaning you could easily either take a bath or walk away with an unexpected bonus if you were forced to sell, say, due to a job transfer).

And this is not even considering the intangibles like "how much do I value not having to go through the hassle of selling when I want to move" and "how much value to I have in not being at the mercy of a landlord who can jack up rents with each lease renewal and/or sell the property to someone who wants to not renew my lease and move in himself."

The real time to buy a lottery ticket is when the expected payout - the payout times the odds that at least one person will draw the winning number - is more than the expected gross revenue since the last drawing.

Here's a simple example:
pick 4 numbers from 1 to 100. The odds of winning are 1 in 100,000,000.
If 100,000,000,000 million people play every week, then in the first week the odds that SOMEONE will win are close to but not quite 100%, so the expected pay-out is a bit less than $100,000,000. Smart money says don't play.

To keep things simple let's assume that the next week only 100,000,000 new people play. The odds that SOMEONE will win are close to but not quite 100%. They are certainly over 50%. The expected payout will be a bit less than $200,000,000 and certainly more than the $100,000,000 that bettors put on the table this time around. The smart money says play.

If you don't see how this works, assume YOU are the only bettor in week two and you buy all 100,000,000 tickets using a random-number-generator. There will be duplicate bets (if you weren't the only ticket-buyer, these numbers would result in you having to share the prize), but you will cover well over 50,000,000 of the possible combinations. If you win, you more than double your investment, and the odds of you winning are more than 50/50.

Of course in the real world it's almost never going to become a good investment to buy a lottery ticket if all you care about is financial return. Why? Because as the jackpot goes up, people who normally don't buy tickets do so. Why? Some do it for emotional/fantasizing reasons. Some do it so they can tell their grandchildren how they "almost won the big one." Some may do it because they think the number of new tickets sold will be low enough to make it a "smart decision" to buy a ticket.

Bottom line: There may be good reasons to buy a lottery ticket, but "because it's a good investment/because it's a smart gamble" is almost never one of them.