Right? I had a fresh mug of coffee to the left of me when I read it, feels like the scalding alone would make that worse than a bo staff without even getting into the damage a shattering mug could do.
This only produces a paradox if you fall for the usual fallacy that "at random" necessarily means "with uniform probability".
For example, I would pick an answer at random by rolling a fair cubic die and picking a) if it rolls a 1, b) on a 2, d) on a 3 or c) otherwise so for me the answer is c) 50%.
However, as it specifies that you are to pick at random the existence, uniqueness and value of the correct answer depends on the specific distribution you choose.
It's not so much that they didn't know it was illegal but that with a stacked supreme court it wasn't clear (and maybe still isn't? Not sure whether Trump can appeal this decision) whether it being obviously unconstitutional would matter.
We have different ideas to put the teeth inside the mouth. We could transplant the young tooth cells at the location of the missing tooth and let them grow inside mouth. Alternatively, we could create the whole tooth in the lab before placing it in the patient’s mouth.
I assume option 1 at least would lead to the nerve connections naturally growing as the tooth does. Regardless, this still seems in the super early lab-proof-of-concept stage so I guess the ultimate answer is we don't know yet.
However, EMMA also exhibits certain limitations: it can process only a small amount of image frames, does not incorporate accurate 3D sensing modalities like LiDAR or radar and is computationally expensive.
And found it wanting compared to systems that incorporate LiDAR
What's a little contravention of the Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War between friends?