A word of caution:
It's worth factoring in battery depreciation. That 7p→15p arbitrage isn’t "free" profit: you pay round-trip losses and you burn cycle life. If you assume ~£X installed, ~Y usable kWh, ~Z cycles to 70–80% capacity, the wear cost alone is often several pence per kWh throughput, which can wipe out most of the spread.
Interesting. It seems that the book assumes its audience is exclusively male without explicitly stating it. Might be a fit here for Hacker News, but even that assumption is already reinforcing gender biases.
This this this. You can ask it to write a test. You can ask it to fix it, if the test does not pass. You can ask it to check whether the code it wrote makes sense, and it will surely find most times that there is something to improve. Urgh, it's not "one prompt and done".
What I would like to highlight is that it's still quite an achievement to be able at all to authenticate users with dozens of different APIs. Could it be better? Sure. Could it be worse? So much. Just imagine everyone would be cooking completely there own thing, or there being fractions or competing "standards".
Using the term "female" to describe a woman can be perceived as reductive and dehumanizing because it reduces her to a biological category. By using the term "woman," the focus is shifted from her biological characteristics to her identity as a person, which is a more respectful and accurate way of addressing her.
Worth noting is that there is no equivalent term to "female" when referring to men, who are almost always referred to as "men." This is because there is an underlying cultural assumption that men are the default and women are the exception. While the use of the word "female" to describe a woman is not inherently wrong, using the term "woman" is more accurate and respectful, and nobody would use the term "male" to describe a man in the same way.
>Worth noting is that there is no equivalent term to "female"
“Male” is the word, and it is used in lots of books in exactly the same way as it’s being used here.
I have read tons of books that said something along the lines of “he was an excellent male specimen” or “a member of the male species”
Using the word female/male has a specific effect on the way the sentence reads, it gives it a clinical feel and is very useful. Rewriting usages to the approved, politically correct, version just smacks of 1984 style newspeak.
I personally would not call someone “a female”, for the reductive reasons you mention.
I also would not change the words of a dead author to reflect modern usage because I enjoy stepping into a the past and seeing how people used to write. Plus there is the alliteration, which is really the clincher here: those who edited this are philistines.
(Not throwing anything at you, webjunkie. You merely explained the change without opining on it. Just commenting in general.)
