In the case of your example we'd do .map(&:unwrap) in Ruby (if unwrap was a method we'd actually want to call)
Notably, these are not the cases _1 and _2 etc are for. They are there for the cases that are not structurally "call this method on the single argument to the block" e.g. .map{ _1 + _2 } or .map { x.foo(_1) }
(_1 is reasonable, because iterating over an enumerable sequence makes it obvious what it is; _1 and _2 combined is often reasonable, because e.g. if we iterate over a key, value enumerable, such as what you get from enumerating a Hash, it's obvious what you get; if you find yourself using _3 or above, you're turning to the dark side and should rethink your entire life)
Funny thing is it's not a proper lake, and not very old. It's an artificial basin that was originally prepared to allow for control of the height of a canal dug all the way from the Thames a few miles away, for transport. But they finished it not long before the railway came, and it went bankrupt, and the canal path itself was sold off to a railway company and is now the path of one of the main London rail lines. As a result there are roads near me, nowhere near water, named things like Towpath Way and Canal Walk.
The reality of course, is that the reason they want to go after the IRS is because they don't wan't them to be able to afford to go after the big fish.
I remember growing up in the 1980's and 90's when there were still a horrifying amount of people who refused to believe CIA did things like that at all, even in a relatively left-wing country like Norway.
You've only "addressed this" by repeating your imaginary scenario of thought crime as justification for arguing that bringing mass murderer into power was right, just like the supporters of every brutal dictator in history though their favourite mass murderer did what they needed to as well.
It's not actually "addressing" anything - all you've done is doubling down on trying to justify actual, real murders that happen with your fear of something hypothetical. This irrational fear of hypothetical harm and willingness to preemptively harm the other first, driven by a relentless bloodlust lies at the core of the fascist psyche.
And again, actual murders trump your fictional headcanon any time. This "it's for the good of everyone" argument is the traditional argument of fascists to justify dismantling democracy and hunting down political opponents. Every brutal dictator and their supporters think they are the heroes and project their own brutality on the people they murder while they leave a trail of blood behind them.
Allende didn't carry out any mass murder. Pinochet did. Hence your purported "knowledge" about what Allende might have done had your preferred mass murderer not taken power is only in your head.
Trying to set up strawmen by pointing to entirely different regimes that nobody in this thread have expressed support for does not change the fact that you're still the only one here repeatedly arguing in favor of someone who actually carried out mass murder.
In reality the dictator you've repeatedly expressed support for here killed thousands, while unlike you I've never supported any oppressive, mass-murdering government of any kind.
Actual murders trumps your fictional head canon any time.
I have never in my life supported any violent coups or putting mass murderers in charge by any means. You have on the other hand repeatedly done so in this thread alone.
"Better mass murder than the fiction I invented in my head" is the comeback you think it is. All it underlines is that you're doubling back on the support of violence and destruction of democracy when it fits your extremist ideology.
I'm neither violent or a conservative, nor will your ongoing attempt to justify mass murder make it so. For someone who keeps calling people fascists, you're the only one in this thread supporting a far-right extremist authoritarian, mass-murdering dictator.
So you're supporting an actual, proven far-right extremist mass murderer over a democratically elected leader who didn't kill anyone because in your head you imagines crimes he never carried out. That is the typical mindset of a fascist.
When you are the only one here who is publicly stating your support for a coup that brought a mass-murdering lunatic into power you do not have the moral high ground on anything at all.
We actually had to step over still wet seaweed at the bottom of the path (the darker bit at the end of the path) to even get onto the beach at this spot, so the normal tidal variations even during a relatively calm summer weekend still got all the way to foot of the walls. I would not particularly like to see the insurance costs or list of things that are not covered for the closest properties. Most of the properties along that stretch are set above fairly sizable seawalls.
Ryde is facing the Solent, the strait between Isle of Wight and "mainland" England, so I guess it's more sheltered than some other parts of the island, but they must still get plenty of nasty weather during the winter.
Labeling media with their significant owners and affiliations of board members would be a great thing. As long as it'd be uniformly applied... And as you've implied, that would certainly be unlikely to happen..
In the case of your example we'd do
.map(&:unwrap)in Ruby (if unwrap was a method we'd actually want to call)Notably, these are not the cases
_1and_2etc are for. They are there for the cases that are not structurally "call this method on the single argument to the block" e.g..map{ _1 + _2 }or.map { x.foo(_1) }(
_1is reasonable, because iterating over an enumerable sequence makes it obvious what it is;_1and_2combined is often reasonable, because e.g. if we iterate over a key, value enumerable, such as what you get from enumerating aHash, it's obvious what you get; if you find yourself using_3or above, you're turning to the dark side and should rethink your entire life)