|
Post by foggyisback on Feb 6, 2024 3:27:15 GMT -5
I mean, we should've heard from Judge Engoron, from the appeals court, from <i>somebody....
|
|
|
Post by foggyisback on Feb 6, 2024 3:27:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by foggyisback on Feb 6, 2024 8:03:50 GMT -5
Pathetic America. He alone can ruin it.
|
|
|
Post by foggyisback on Feb 6, 2024 8:25:46 GMT -5
LOL
|
|
|
Post by LA_Randy on Feb 6, 2024 8:50:39 GMT -5
I guess with no migrants to yell at they resort to yelling at each other.
|
|
|
Post by LA_Randy on Feb 6, 2024 9:53:19 GMT -5
Think today is the 6th…🙂
|
|
|
Post by LA_Randy on Feb 6, 2024 9:57:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by LA_Randy on Feb 6, 2024 10:07:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by LA_Randy on Feb 6, 2024 10:17:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by foggyisback on Feb 6, 2024 10:38:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by foggyisback on Feb 6, 2024 10:39:04 GMT -5
One bombshell.
|
|
|
Post by foggyisback on Feb 6, 2024 10:48:27 GMT -5
He must think this is Lethal Weapon 3 or something 😠
|
|
|
Post by forgottenlord on Feb 6, 2024 11:16:54 GMT -5
This fucking meme needs to die Every professional Engineer and Scientist will absolutely conclude the answer is 1 because they have to communicate with that short hand constantly. And yet, everyone who's finished High School Math will cite BEDMAS until their blue in the face, ignoring that the rules exist to serve those who use and communicate numbers every day and they've already concluded that the answer is 1. Parentheses being first is why they exist to begin with, though... If we're going to ignore them, then why bother? Parenthesis are tools to clarify, just as the Oxford Comma is a tool to clarify. There are times where we should be explicit but 99% of the time when we are not explicit, a common meaning can be discerned. It should also be noted: (a/b)(c/d) = (ac)/(bd) Why the fuck would we go {term on top}/{term on bottom}{term on top}. That's not a simple way to communicate. Oh, we might do it in terms of: ({numerator of first concept}/{denominator of first concept})({numerator of second concept}/{denominator of second concept}), but each section is an explicitly separate section so it would actually make more sense to use parenthesis to separate them since they are distinct concepts. However, the simplest form of many expressions has many items in both numerator and denominator so it makes sense, in that simplest form, to be communicating it in the simplest way. For example: PV = nRT - the gas equation T = PV/nR - restructuring the gas equation to solve for temperature That's the simplest form of communicating that information. Any reasonable person can easily follow that logic of that separation and there's no reason why R would be considered part of the numerator. In fact, if I wanted: T2(P2) - T1(P1) I'd probably write it as T2 - T1 = (P2V/nR) - (P1V/nR) = (P2-P1) * (V/nR) That first line there, why am I putting parenthesis around those terms when BEDMAS says that they clearly would be handled first anyways? Well, because they're about explicitly defining the concept. I'm highlighting what I'm defining. It enables stronger communication. But putting it around the denominator? It provides no benefit to communication. It enables no greater understanding of what is being done.
|
|
|
Post by forgottenlord on Feb 6, 2024 13:00:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by forgottenlord on Feb 6, 2024 14:43:37 GMT -5
XKCD is adapting their What If Articles to youtube!!!!
|
|
|
Post by mrobvious on Feb 6, 2024 14:46:25 GMT -5
I find it interesting when Fox comes out and challenge the fuckturd GOPers that come on their networks. Fox stating that the border patrol union is coming out in favor of the legislation as it is scores better than anything the've seen for decades and the GOP fuckturd says it is their job to interpret the situation. Meaning this is entirely political, deny a win and kick the can. If it wasn't for the idiot electorate this makes GOP look so fucking stupid, vapid and weak. And more than anything opportunistic. Just to follow the rules of the orange flesh emperor. Weaklings all. These fascists are even more pathetic that the Italians in the 30s.
|
|
|
Post by forgottenlord on Feb 6, 2024 15:31:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by LA_Randy on Feb 6, 2024 15:39:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by LA_Randy on Feb 6, 2024 15:59:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by LA_Randy on Feb 6, 2024 16:43:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by foggyisback on Feb 6, 2024 18:01:24 GMT -5
Per special counsel: No charges are expected against Joe in his docs case.
|
|
|
Post by foggyisback on Feb 6, 2024 18:53:05 GMT -5
Matching pair of bombshells😄
|
|
|
Post by foggyisback on Feb 6, 2024 18:59:39 GMT -5
XKCD is adapting their What If Articles to youtube!!!! Stick figs in motion 😄
|
|
|
Post by forgottenlord on Feb 6, 2024 21:20:34 GMT -5
MTG is accused Dems of duplicity by hiding one of their members screwing up the whip count.
1) How absurdly stupid 2) Doesn't that only explain half of the problem?
|
|
|
Post by phillippatUK on Feb 7, 2024 2:08:41 GMT -5
Parentheses being first is why they exist to begin with, though... If we're going to ignore them, then why bother? Parenthesis are tools to clarify, just as the Oxford Comma is a tool to clarify. There are times where we should be explicit but 99% of the time when we are not explicit, a common meaning can be discerned. It should also be noted: (a/b)(c/d) = (ac)/(bd) Why the fuck would we go {term on top}/{term on bottom}{term on top}. That's not a simple way to communicate. Oh, we might do it in terms of: ({numerator of first concept}/{denominator of first concept})({numerator of second concept}/{denominator of second concept}), but each section is an explicitly separate section so it would actually make more sense to use parenthesis to separate them since they are distinct concepts. However, the simplest form of many expressions has many items in both numerator and denominator so it makes sense, in that simplest form, to be communicating it in the simplest way. For example: PV = nRT - the gas equation T = PV/nR - restructuring the gas equation to solve for temperature That's the simplest form of communicating that information. Any reasonable person can easily follow that logic of that separation and there's no reason why R would be considered part of the numerator. In fact, if I wanted: T2(P2) - T1(P1) I'd probably write it as T2 - T1 = (P2V/nR) - (P1V/nR) = (P2-P1) * (V/nR) That first line there, why am I putting parenthesis around those terms when BEDMAS says that they clearly would be handled first anyways? Well, because they're about explicitly defining the concept. I'm highlighting what I'm defining. It enables stronger communication. But putting it around the denominator? It provides no benefit to communication. It enables no greater understanding of what is being done. Context matters then? But that doesn't mean they don't have any meaning at all in the first place.
|
|