Wow that flag is ugly. But now I’m wondering if it’s possible to combine the flags in a way that looks nice.

Because of the shadow maybe. But it’s practically impossible to offset the human carbon footprint with trees.

I think they did that in castles, because it’s generally pretty hard to build castles. If the enemy is inside the walls you are practically done anyway.

Sounds like an urban legend. Who do you mean anyway? James Couzens? Harry Bennett? Charles Sorensen? His son Edsel? They all died of natural causes.

There are a lot of YouTubers just playing with them, but I think Jim Browning is the only one actually taking them down.

Assassination Classroom (2015) ?

OC is probably from an EU county where everything has to normalized to p. 100g because everything else is just insane.

It doesn’t matter because they show the images to multiple people and even shift the images around. If a square is only halfway there some people will click it, some won’t and this way you can generate some sort of heat map which is all you need to label your training data.

There is very likely some step to sit on 🤣. To empty the water you just need a hose and do the same trick people use to steal gasoline (or a pump if you want to be fast and fancy).

That’s exactly what I did and never looked back. Just installed code-server + a few vs code plugins. Automatically synced via some some scripts that push and pull+merge git commits, done. No need for one of those million note taking apps. I also installed polyglot notebooks for vs code to embed code into notes.

Probably a quick flash and it’s gone 🤣

The joke is because of “degrees” (also to measure angles) and “radians”

Joules is unfortunately a vector because it’s over a distance in a direction.

What? Joule is an energy unit and energy is a scalar quantity and not a vector. There is no “energy direction” and no “distance”.

Edit: even your edit doesn’t make sense. Provide a source that says that energy or joule is somehow a vector.

Early humans (before they prepared anything) it was actually evolution that made sure we know what to eat. It’s a gradual process that leads to a situation that most common things that are harmful cause pain and everything that’s poisonos tastes awful and bitter.

In very simplified terms, if you as a human found something to eat and it tasted good, you probably ate a lot of it. If it was poisonous you just died. If you didn’t like it you didn’t eat it, so everybody that was genetically predisposed to dislike poisonous stuff didn’t eat a lot of it and reproduced.

Pain is a similar story. Everyone not feeling enough pain stopped being careful and died.

What also adds into the mix is that humans are social animals that learn from each other.

Note that evolution is a very very slow process so a lot of things started out as instincts (like some animals that just avoid yellow-black striped animals). If this is important in your environment this instinct will get stronger and stronger until it turns into some sort of pain.

So regarding poisonos, if they are common in nature chances are pretty high that eating a little bit won’t kill you and it will taste like shit.

Update: That’s also the reason why sugar tastes so sweet and good. We evolved to like it because it was important for survival during a time you couldn’t just go out and buy that stuff in bulk.

Just saw the image you posted and it’s awesome :-) I’m part of the group that can’t solve it, because I don’t know the 🌭 function from the top of my head. I also found the choice of symbols interesting that 🌭 is analytical continuation of 🍔 and not the other way round 🤣

Chat GPT’s answer for me:

Certainly! The expression 6/2(1+2) is ambiguous due to the implicit multiplication. Let’s solve it in both ways:

1. Implicit multiplication with higher priority:

[ \frac{6}{2}(1+2) ]

First, solve the parentheses:

[ \frac{6}{2}(3) ]

Now, perform the division:

[ 3 \times 3 = 9 ]

2. Implicit multiplication with the same priority as division:

[ \frac{6}{2(1+2)} ]

Again, solve the parentheses:

[ \frac{6}{2(3)} ]

Now, perform the multiplication first:

[ \frac{6}{6} = 1 ]

So, depending on the interpretation of implicit multiplication, you can get different results: 9 or 1.

I think it’s funny that ChatGPT figured out 1 and 9 but has the steps completely backwards. First it points out what has high priority and then does the exact opposite, both times 🤣

Thank you for taking the time reading it.

Standards are as mentioned in the article often extra careful to prevent confusion and thus often stricter than widespread conventions with things they allow and don’t allow.

a/b*c is not ambiguous because no widespread convention would treat it any other way than (a/b)*c.

But you can certainly try to proof me wrong by showing me a calculator that would evaluate 6/2*3 to anything but 9.

So if there is not a single calculator out there that would come to a different result, how can it be ambiguous?

Update: Standards are rule-books for real projects to make it simpler to work together. It’s a bit like a Scrabble dictionary. If a word is missing in the official Scrabble dictionary, it doesn’t automatically mean that it’s not a real word, it just means that it wouldn’t be allowed to play that word in official Scrabble tournaments.

Same with (ISO) standards. Just because the standard forbids it doesn’t mean it’s not widespread or forbidden generally. It’s only forbidden in a context where all participants agreed to follow the standard.

Exactly a/b*c equals (a/b)*c but I’d instantly reconsider my position if you can show me a single calculator that would handle that diffently (credible calculator, not the once that some students program for homework assignments).

Even though one shouldn’t treat calculators as some kind of authority but if all calculators handle it that way (all calculators of the five major manufacturers, Google, MathCad, Mathematics, various open source CAS) it’s probably a very good indictator that it’s not ambiguous.

What I also mentioned in the article is that standards and guidelines are typically stricter than most conventions in the name of clarity. So some of them even forbid things like “a / b * c” even if practically everybody agrees how this should be interpreted, just to be “extra-safe”

Regarding the parenthesis the C# static code analyzer can be set to remove unnecessary parentheses.

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/fundamentals/code-analysis/style-rules/ide0047-ide0048

IDE0047 is the static analyzer rule for “Remove unnecessary parentheses”

The default for those rules is to enforce parentheses on binary operations (because most people aren’t as familiar with the binary operator priorities as they are with regular math operator priorities) and remove unnecessary ones in other mathematical expressions.

Besides that I can’t remember that I saw a standard that states to only use parentheses if needed but I think it’s reasonable ro assume that most people would do that anyway. Writing ((((5+3)))*2) is obviously stupid even though I can’t think of any style guide that would explicitly state not doing that.

What many style guides actually state is to use proper fractions (horizontal bar) where ever possible.

Regarding the ambiguity with the implicit multiplication and division. The division is indeed required to make it ambiguous but actually only some kind of trigger

Let’s take 6(1+2)/2. Even though the priorities with weak and strong juxtaposition are not the same with respect to the implicit multiplication the answer would be the same but if you would think about the problem like a computer the way to get to the answer would be different (for example the calculators I mentioned in the article would do different things internally)

Strong juxtaposition: you solve the implicit multiplication first because it has higher priority than the division. After that you do the division. Answer is 9.

Weak juxtaposition: implicit multiplication has the same priority as division. You do them left to right and actually end up with the same result even when following different conventions.

So the implicit multiplication is the reason why there are two conflicting conventions (which are necessary for the ambiguity because if there would be only one widespread convention it wouldn’t be ambiguous) and the division is required to trigger the ambiguity (show where the two conventions differ).

The LTR thing is actually a very wide spread convention. I’m not familiar will all cultures on earth but my guess is of you use Arabic numerals and + and - you will work left to right for multiplication/division and addition/subtraction.

If one has a bit of math experience you can actually solve multiplication/division and subtraction/addition in any order (if you know what you are doing) like I described here: https://programming.dev/comment/5661037