Sweatshirts are double-layered pullovers, typically non-woven. Sweaters are single-layer pullovers, typically knit. Jackets have buttons or zippers. Hoodies have hoods and are made of fabric (e.g. raincoats are not hoodies).

You can have hoodies that are also sweatshirts, or hoodies that are also jackets.

This garment pictured in your post is a jacket. It is also a hoodie. It is neither a sweatshirt nor a sweater.

This is just my interpretation of the situation. I don't know of any formal classification system for outerwear.

You have both operational and denotaional semantics in all languages.

Operational semantics are "what does this code do," and denotaional semantics are "what does this code mean" in a more abstract sense.

In an imperative language, what a given piece of code means is "execute these instructions," so the denotaional semantics are basically equivalent to the operational semantics.

But for higher level languages, these kinds of semantics can differ. For example, in Prolog, the denotaional semantics of a given clause boils down to some formula of predicate logic, while the operational semantics is that a Prolog interpreter will perform a depth first search through the formulas to find acceptable bindings to the variables.

You can imagine another language using the same syntax as Prolog where the denotaional semantics still boils down to formulas of logic, but the operational semantics might be a breath first search through those formulas.

In other words, the denotaional semantics are the more abstract meaning of the code (like, does this code represent data, or formulas, or instructions, or something else) and the operational semantics are the more concrete meaning of the code, i.e. what should happen when the code is executed.

Generally, the denotaional semantics are what you are using in the higher level optimizers, and the operational semantics are what you are using in the lower level optimizers.

What zombie work, across all mediums, does it best?

Some punctuation and the proper superlative makes OP's title a bit more readable.

Yeah, I know what a hydrogen fuel cell is.

What I'm saying is that the cost to develop hydrogen infrastructure, the complexity of it's distribution, the risk due to its high volatility, and the uncertainty of a relatively underdeveloped technology all seem to be losing to batteries, which are very mature tech and are already in the supply chain and for which we already have a well developed electricity distribution grid.

I just don't see what investing in fuel cells will do other than slow the adoption of zero emission vehicles by another decade.

What are the benefits of fuel cells?

Do they outweigh the benefits of batteries?

I'm confused. Why are we talking about Tesla?

Is fuel cell tech actually easier, cheaper, or better than batteries in any way?

Google operates on a trunk model, according to this:

https://dev.to/tbodt/comment/1j4e

In the US, I pay $90/month ($1,080/year) for 1 Gbps internet.

That's it. No TV. No landline. Just Internet.

In addition to questions of end-of-life, Existentialism also deals with questions of purpose-of-life. Which can be mind racking even if you're not afraid of death.

Still not super interesting questions to me though.

If you restrict it to just Americans, then yeah, I get that. There are a ton of white people in America.

I was thinking worldwide though. You don't have to be American to be hated.

Now I'm curious.

Are you saying that there are more LGBTQ+ people than there are non-white people?

I'm curious because I would have expected the opposite, but I don't actually have any numbers to back that up. What percent of people identify as LGBTQ+? And is it uniform across races?