You couldn't, because Eve wasn't called Eve at the time, and because God doesn't deadname trans women.
Original SRS surgeon God creates a woman from male flesh in Genesis 2:22. First ally Adam insists that "she shall be called Woman" in Genesis 2:23. By Genesis 2:25 they're acknowledged as man and wife. But Eve doesn't get her own name until Genesis 3:20, and then that's the only name we ever know her by.
This obvious stupidity is why their attempts to wind people up just leaves me saying "Carry on". A handful of rich idiots are not going to birth themselves out of a minority. They can't. Wealth is by definition a minority. And the more children they have, the more their wealth will be split. Aristocracies of the past showed what happens then. Political affiliation isn't all that hereditary either, so if that's the goal, that's also bound to fail. If it's a race thing—they claim it's not, but...—they need to support other white people, but their ideas just... don't. These people are cosplayers.
Ugh. The tides are literally zero sum. The moon does not create extra water.
And growing up by the sea, one of the first things I learned about rising tides is that they drown people (who don't have boats).
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.
Absolutely, but the people hurling accusations don't care about the strength of arguments. They're not even necessarily trying to make an argument (in the logical sense). Tossing back a document that says "genocide is hard to prove" isn't going to win them over. It's more likely to make them double down. And that strikes me as a mistake.
There's also the problem that to people who rightfully abhor it, any action that appears to be rules-lawyering genocide is almost certain to be rejected, turning away any audience that might have been receptive to a counter-narrative.
That just leaves commenters who already agree, and when they join in, Hexbear is 'brigading with denialist propaganda', which feeds into the chuds' sense of righteousness when they harrass us.
Something this contentious needs time and a degree of receptivity, neither of which is provided by 'throwing out' some bombshell of evidence.
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?
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.
This is the reasoning that leads to "if you think medicines are too expensive, stop buying them" with much the same problem of it not being quite that simple for the majority of humanity, whose "choices" are not as unconstrained as the ones you're familiar with.
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:
And it does seem like the traditional artists would be included in that class as well. My previous reply wasn't meant to be as snarky as it appears looking back at it.