Of course, plants don't grow unless humans specifically put them in the ground, which is fortunate for your point there.
Silly straw man, the point is that more is not always better. Such rounds would constitute a lot of additional seeding.
There's nothing wrong with cutting costs and reducing pollution. These rounds aren't being made for killing people.
Actually they may kill people. By planting seeds and growing plants on a live fire training range they are potentially hiding unexploded ordinance. Making it harder to recognize and increasing the likelihood of accidental detonation.
I'm well aware of this, but it doesn't change the fact that C++ is a different language with a fundamentally different philosophy. Adding features to a language is not some kind of neutral operation; it can affect users that have no intention of using those features.
The point you are missing is that you don't have to use most of those features, and sometimes you should not. If someone want to write a project in "C" they will probably use a C++ compiler and use a minor feature of C++ or two. Their resulting code being far closer to C design and philosophy than C++'s. People have been doing so since the 90s. So the lines are quite blurred and the original question poorly thought out.
Take for example asteroid mining, how long have we heard about that?
About as long as we've been hearing about rockets that land on their tail and self driving cars and handheld communications devices that connect to anyone.
a very unique treat
"unique" is a binary term. Something is either unique or not unique. There are no "degrees" of uniqueness.
That is a somewhat unique perspective.
So, "Alien" or "The Thing"? What are your bets guys?
Assuming "Alien" is referring to a "xenomorph" we might want to add Borg to the list.
There needs to be a time limit for editing tweets. Five minutes is good. This keeps someone from going back and changing what they said long after they said it. There also needs to be a flag that tells people that the tweet was edited. This prevents modifying a tweet after people have already agreed with it, etc.
Don't allow likes, replies, forwarding, etc during the edit window.
Or cancel/delete any likes, replies, forwarding, etc when an edit occurs, basically deter editing. If the original content changes the feedback should be removed. Yes, this can be abused but it seems less troublesome than letting feedback persist after an edit. Maybe notify the replier and if they care they could check the edited original and restore their feedback if they still care too. This would let them call out someone who completely changed what they originally said.
The SENATE was designed to give representation to states.
Both the Senate and the Electoral College were designed to do so. Both were part of the compromises to smaller states to get them to join the union in the first place.
"In The Federalist Papers, James Madison explained his views on the selection of the president and the Constitution. In Federalist No. 39, Madison argued the Constitution was designed to be a mixture of state-based and population-based government. Congress would have two houses: the state-based Senate and the population-based House of Representatives. Meanwhile, the president would be elected by a mixture of the two modes."
Plus as explained elsewhere the real problem is not the electoral college itself. The real problem is winner take all states.
The world is moving so fast these days that the man who says it can't be done is generally interrupted by someone doing it. -- E. Hubbard