Normally, yes. But if the driver has explicit support for it, not so much. Basically nVidia is washing their hands of legal responsibility for you breaking your laptop.

Right, the whole story came across as "I'm amazing, but for some reason interviewers keep turning me down after finding gaps in my knowledge, shouldn't they just overlook the gaps in my knowledge and see me for how amazing I really am?"

1) You missed out the "transmission" losses for the fuel (it takes roughly 1.2 gallons of fuel on average to transport 5 gallons of fuel to the petrol station)
2) You missed out the transmission losses for a mechanical car (around 30% of your energy is lost in the gearbox/diff/...)
3) EVs are actually about 90% efficient, not 40%.
4) Power plants are roughly 50-60% efficient even if you assume you use fossil fuels to generate the power.

What this adds up to:
Fuel powered car = 80% (fuel tanker efficiency) * 26% (engine efficiency) * 70% (transmission efficiency) = roughly 15% efficient total system (ignoring the amount of energy it takes to dig up the fuel and carry it to shore)
Electrically powered car = 60% (power plant efficiency) * 94% (power grid efficiency) * 85% (charging efficiency) * 90% (engine efficiency) = roughly 43% efficient total system.

Add to that that you hypothetically in the future can then replace the fossil fuel burning power plant with a {nuclear | wind | solar | ... } one, and you get a rather huge win. You're literally using one third the power to drive your vehicle.

Right, because "zomg, we can't build cars fast enough" is such a horrible problem for him to have.

Oh god oh god, please don't do that. Not indenting the inner loop here is horrifically unreadable.

Right, because no one has ever stolen bitcoin by hacking into a computer and emptying accounts... oh wait...

This is pretty much how it works in most of Europe, but America is deathly afraid of the government having databases, even of information that they themselves give to you.

I'm going to file a police complaints report, and sue the cop for stealing my property without due cause.

"I'm sorry officer, I'd rather not let my phone out of my possession, could you go grab the spare battery from your car, or get another officer to come and join you please."

"I'm sorry officer, I'd rather not let it out of my possession, could you go grab a scanner that works instead please?"

So... don't implement the system this way. Why are you guys all so unimaginative in its implementation?

Here's an alternative implementation.

"Hello, officer"
"ID please." [holds up NFC scanner.]
"here" [holds phone to NFC scanner, sees the drivers license and insurance card pop up on screen, puts finger on home button to authorise transfer of information]
"thanks"

The cop now has a unique id for your drivers license and insurance card that he can look up in the DMV and insurer's databases, and you have your phone in hand, still locked.

What do you mean "there is no way for the policeman to scan the QR code while the phone is in your possession in you car."

This system hasn't been implemented yet, that means that the cops don't have the necessary hardware... yet. The necessary hardware is a hand held NFC terminal or QR code scanner. He walks up to your window, taps on it, says license and registration. You hold up your phone, he holds up the scanner, you put your thumb on your phone's fingerprint scanner, the information transfers.

If you had read the article at all, you would understand that "hand them my phone" is not a step in this process. Showing them a barcode, or holding your phone up to an NFC reader is.

Because often, this code is a lot more complex, involves loops, chunks of other simple statements in between etc. In general, the thing inside the "if (success)" can be substantially more complex, and end up needing nesting anyway.

What you're saying is "I'm afraid of the word goto, so you should write code with the exact same semantics as the goto based code, but with different words that imply different semantics".

I mean really, this code is just using goto, but renaming it do/while/break. It's not actually using the do/while abstraction for what it's for, it's simply abusing it to make goto.

In the mean time, others have already addressed why this is less convenient than the goto pattern for error handling, so I don't really buy this as a reason not to use goto in the structured "I'm simulating the error monad" case.