The rake has nothing to do with JS (which I agree is cursed, but for its own reasons, not this).

You have called a function in a way that does not give a consistent value (Date()). Such functions are hardly the preserve of JavaScript. You've failed to adequately deal with the range of values produced, with code that tries to insist that the "31st February" can be a meaningful date in February. You should accept that this is your mistake and learn to (better) avoid side effects where possible.

Also, the function isn't side effecty since it doesn't make implicit references outside its scope.

Edit responding to your edit:

Also, the function isn't side effecty since it doesn't make implicit references outside its scope.

The Date() function's output varies according to something other than its input (and even the rest of your program). Using its output without accounting for that variation means that your function, as originally written, also gives inconsistent return values, varying according to something other than its input, because it does, in fact, reference something outside the function. If it did not, the results would only depend on the monthNumber argument, and would always be consistent. I don't know what you call that, but I view it as a side effect.

As you have said, the rake is that months have different lengths, and you need to account for that. But that's not one of JavaScript's many issues.

Their physiology is barely diverged so their intellects are likely to remain similar. Espionage is frequently the theme of Romulan encounters, which would help keep them up to date. And if they procreate more frequently than every seven years, they might have a much larger population even with greater murderousness, with more people being advantageous for tech development.

It's bad enough when student 'conservatives' play this "I am the master debater" game (with the most bad-faith approach, and without any understanding of real debate) but, when they're in their thirties, it's even more pathetic.

The colony leaders claim that those who disagree with their new system are either "too outmoded to comprehend the visionary" or "too visionary to accept what can reasonably be achieved today".

Great! A colony of centrists.

there have been protests against their binary doctrines

With centrist matriarchs, there's a reading here that they're terfs.

No.

The point of an analogy is that it isn't a 1:1 mapping.

The utility of an analogy is that it conveys a point in a more obvious way. To do this, it can be stripped down, exaggerated and distorted, even logically inconsistent. The only measure of success is whether the point is received, and once that has occurred, the whole thing can be discarded in favour of a return to the original topic, now with a new perspective.

The analogy is merely a conversational tool. If it does the job, put it down and move on.

This kind of pedantic over-analysis is an even more useless interjection, and is a perfect example of something that, while correct in some regard, misses the point and only serves as a distraction.

You are wasting your time. Evidence is for people who want to be convinced.

If this is actually important, don't push them to adopt your conception, interrogate theirs. Find the contradictions and insist they explain them away. Keep reminding them of the inconsistencies in their own claims. Force them to confront them instead of moving the goalposts. Record every concession and don't allow them to backslide.

A motivated believer will hold out for a long time because they risk losing a part of themselves. Is this really how you want to spend your time?

We don't allow slave labor like communism does.

You might want to recheck that constitution.

Oh, no, what am I saying? You don't want to do that, because that would once more point out that you're clueless in your assertions. Now I don't want to read any more of them. And I'm free to turn you down, right?

Bad faith it is, then. Got it.

I know you deleted your earlier nonsense, but I saw some of it first, so I know how out of touch you are. You were wrong about how much wealth people have, but even after having that corrected, here you are with "It's just how the world works", another incorrect assertion that might describe your experience of the world, but is unrepresentative for humanity as a whole.

Most people don't have the luxuries you so clearly take for granted. Turning down exploitative employment is only an option for those with money in reserve. Most people do not have that. Going somewhere else means separation from family and friends—easy enough for the thoroughly unlikable, but community is important to most members of a social species. And, anyway, that's assuming there aren't legal restrictions like immigration controls. As I said before, most lives are more constrained than yours, and that isn't because those people are any less deserving. That is how the world works.

I'm going to suggest you read the article "Why Fascism is the Wave of the Future" by Edward Luttwak. Don't worry, it's just a warning, and it starts:—

That capitalism unobstructed by public regulations, cartels, monopolies, oligopolies, effective trade unions, cultural inhibitions or kinship obligations is the ultimate engine of economic growth is an old-hat truth

so it's not commie propaganda. But it might relieve you of some of your misconceptions, since you clearly aren't listening to us here. Of course, you could just carry on regardless, but then it'll be just far too clear that you're not acting in good faith.

Honestly, even just the "a" is fine, really. I'll just read it as "blah-hadge" for my own amusement. But if anyone wants the å, it's probably Alt-0229 on Windows, Ctrl-Shift-u e 5 on Linux, or hold down "a" until the accented-characters popup appears on Macs, iOS and Android.

I read it as Kropotkin calling bread a conquistador and warning us of its right-wing tendencies and ratcheting effects, which is why he writes that there's "a right to bread" and how, with it, "the Revolution will be on the right road". Contrariwise, "great cities are left without bread".

He also points to its pernicious indoctrinating ways: "the worker’s child must go without bread!" and lurking omnipresence: "two departments round Paris could find ample bread"

He was telling us to be on the lookout and that getting rid of it was of the utmost importance: "the question of bread must take precedence of all other questions", "suppress the possibility of obtaining anything besides the bread", "is necessary to deliver the bread", "bread must be found", "produce the bread". Fortunately this shouldn't be too hard: "less than 6 half-days’ work could procure bread".

In desperate times, we should not just eat the rich: "in times of Revolution one can dine contentedly enough on a bit of bread and cheese" (cheese being identified as a collaborator).

The concerning parts of the book for me are:

1. the disregard for prison abolition—as he writes of how people will be better off once they "know that their daily bread is secured"—and the preoccupation with Russians as jailers: "But as soon as the Revolution comes, the Russian peasant will keep bread". However, at least we can have a party after: "After bread has been secured, leisure is the supreme aim", and the sentence is not especially long: "to have bread for a whole year". Also, while it seems that he does believe in people's justice to an extent: "give bread to everyone; to transform this execrable society", the people are a vengeful mob: 'which old institutions will fall under the proletarian axe, voices will cry out: "Bread';
2. the sinophobia and racism: "Let us make sure of bread to begin with, we shall see to china and velvet later on." (I think Velvet is one of those old-timey names like "Ceylon".)

Ah, Enhanced, the folks that brought us interrogation.