Yes.
But even if they didn't limit cars. That's no excuse for not limiting e-bikes.
You don't need to prove that you know the traffic laws to ride an ebike. You do to ride a car.
You do not need a license that can be revoked to ride an ebike. So if you speed in a car you could just get your license removed, not the case for ebikes.
Depending on what you do, it will probably only be a few lines of rust. Most of the complexity would be in the DB setup and SQL queries. Since you'll probably use an HTTP server crate that will handle all of that for you.
So, yes, it should be possible.
Even if you don't intend to make it a UI project. You should still do a shitty UI. Otherwise you will spend more time testing it than actually developing it.
Lots of talk about the problems of implicit conversions. Which is known, and is the reason that rust does not have implicit conversions. But when it came to the heart of the article, the explanation of why unsigned is bad for sizes, it's just:
I can see how you can think the 3rd one is an issue. But then the answer should be the java one of just removing unsigned. Since that issue is not exclusive to sizes, every unsigned use case has it.
It seems like the real problem here is having implicit conversions.
If you fear both, and curl | sh is a red flag. Binary blob is also a red flag, if you fear them both equally.
Has every software that runs in your computer been compiled by you?
Even if you the operators don't assassinate anyone, running illegal businesses will 99% of the time have other immoral side-effects. It's hard to keep an illegal business running while being 100% morally right.
If a farm has connections to organized crime, it's not growing it like any other crop.
I know people that grow normal crops, none of them have connections to organized crime.
If it's not open source or you are not compiling it:
Why so much fear about the shell script but no fear from the executable?
If it's open source and you are compiling it:
If you don't fear the project because you (presumably) have read the source code and determined that it's fine, why fear a shell script that is most certainly simpler, and you can read it like the rest of the code?
The morality of consuming marijuana is proportional to its legality though.
I will say that it's highly immoral to consume marijuana of unknown source, or sourced from a drug cartel that assassinates people that get in their way of delivering marihuana to you.
But if the source of marijuana is just some tax paying dude that grows marijuana legally like you would any other crop, I don't see any moral issue.
At most you could argue "the resources to grow it could be spent on food", but that is true for literally every form of entertainment. And "but it is unhealthy, and then we all have to pay for your poor health choices", which is actually fair. But way more moral than the drug-cartel sourced one.
For alcohol is different though, since it directly causes antisocial behavior on the consumer. Consuming alcohol is as immoral as whatever immoral acts you do while drunk.
Assuming a person born in 2000, with a 100 year life expectancy for easy math. In order to live to 3263, would need to live 1263 years, or 1263% life expectancy, which would mean 100% by default + 1163% via masturbation. So masturbate an average of 58,15 times per week, or 8,3 times per day.
It would hurt a lot, but I can see it being possible.
Which should be a good starting place
No. That is because of the simplistic definition.
If people have "too much" money, the demand of products will go up. Specially "luxury" products. As that is what people buy when they have "too much" money. Increasing demand increases prices, therefore, inflation.
The same is true if the supply of "luxury" products decrease. For the same reasons.
However, if inflation is due to an increase of "essential" goods' prices, it's trickier. That is because increasing essential prices won't result in a decline of their demand. They are essential, people will stop buying the things they don't need, not the ones they do. Therefore, the demand of "luxury" goods will fall.
Only when people can't afford the essential goods will they stop buying them. Which probably would mean death/emigration. Only then will demand fall, because there's literally less people.
When you tax, it's the same case. People have less money, so demand for "luxury" items will fall.
So technically yes, it would reduce inflation, since there's probably some "luxury" goods in the basket you are using to measure inflation. But it won't actually reduce the price of essential goods, which is what most people would expect from a fall of inflation.
Of course, some fall of demand for "luxury" goods could mean a fall in "essential" goods. For example, a fall in water-gun fights or golf-course watering would mean a fall in demand for water, which is an essential good. Economics is not a simple subject
Wtf is this?
The most foreseeable event of the last 20 years.
Massive out of this world investment + no demand = prices so cheap they were operating at a huge loss
Operating at a huge loss + time = huge enshittification
Raising prices is the easiest form of enshittification. Ads are coming too. Lastly it will be degrading features. Incorporating more features that no one wants, and bundling with other services that no one wants.
A motor. Which is what ebikes have. The difference between a 20km/h ebike and a 200km/h ebike is the strength of the motor.
If you don't cap the strength of the motor to be classified as an "ebike", one could build an electric motorcycle that goes 200km/h and call it an ebike.