i like to roleplay as a lobster

Yes, I’ve.

What a strange language we’ve.

It’s correct, just a bit confusing to parse at first. Like a garden path sentence, but with commas.

Just curious. Matt talks about this exact forum argument in the book while on the topic of off-by-one errors. Super hilarious book, highly recommend.

By chance, have you read Matt Parker’s “Humble Pi”?

Sure, but if you’re using the IVT as a proof that there was a point where there was indeed a “first chicken egg”, you still haven’t answered whether the first chicken egg came before the first chicken. Clearly there was a first egg and there was a first chicken, IVT proves this, but which came first? This depends on those definitions. We’d need to find exactly where it “passes over”, which could depend on who you ask.

If you define a chicken as hatching from a chicken egg (“every chicken must have hatched from a chicken egg”), then the egg came first. If you define a chicken egg as an egg that was laid by a chicken (“all chicken eggs must have been laid by chickens”), then the chicken came first. And notice how these definitions are not necessarily mutually exclusive, leading to this whole philosophical issue in the first place.

If, in a much more extremely broad sense, we’re asking which came first, chickens or eggs in general, then I think we could agree that eggs came first, as I believe creatures were laying eggs long before the first “chicken” emerged, for most definitions of “chicken”.

I don’t think you can use the Intermediate Value Theorem to answer this. If taxonomists can entirely agree on one single path at each and every stage of evolution, the singular point of where an egg is now defined as a chicken egg where the egg that the creature which laid it hatched from is not a chicken egg–or vice versa, where a creature which is now defined as a chicken where its parents are not chickens–cannot be objectively determined. They’re human-defined lines, which makes this entirely a human philosophy problem in the first place.

(EDIT: messed up the formatting of this image) I like this analogy here:

It’s not completely relevant to this discussion, but it has some good points here. We can all agree that, at some point, it stopped being one color and started being another, but any method we use to draw that line would be arbitrary anyway. Maybe you take the hex code and find the point where the blue value is greater than the red value, but where is the text purple? Does purple even exist under this definition? Or maybe the text is red when, say, the hex for red is 80+% the total color value, blue for the opposite case, and purple for the in-between cases? But then, why 80% and not 90%? This is starting to sound really pretentious, but my point here is that in agreement to your last point, there’s no correct scientific answer to this problem.

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound? Of course it does.

No, this is true, proof by induction:

(x+y)^2 = x^2 + y^2

For (x,y) = (0,0) :

(x+y)^2 = (0+0)^2 = (0)^2 = 0

x^2 + y^2 = 0^2 + 0^2 = 0 + 0 = 0

Q. E. D.

Thus it should follow that it applies to every other case. (The other cases are left as an exercise for the reader.)

I think it falls into the same pitfalls as most super niche communities, like a lot of subreddits did.

For example, the shaving subreddit (/r/wicked_edge I think?). Its mission statement was to introduce people to cleaner, safer, and more efficient shaving methods. And for the most part, with all of its resources and wikis, it successfully did it. But if you choose to stay after you’ve made your informed purchases, the posts were mostly braggarts showing off their latest hundreds-of-dollars handles, supreme razor blades, brushes made from actual gold, that sort of thing. My point is, the average person (by my guess, like 90% of people going to the site) gets the information they need and then never participate in the community again. But those who stay are those who really want to stay– people who are most likely to brag and boast. So over time, it falls more and more into plain old dick measuring contests.

This obviously isn’t true of all communities, but I think it’s a common pitfall for a lot of them. I can imagine privacy is very similar: take all the steps you can to learn to protect your privacy, and then… you’re good, for the most part.

yiga clan moment

Except American aerospace.

Previously, I had never ever seen a movie in theaters twice. If I had seen a movie once and wanted to watch it again, I could wait to buy it for myself. It just didn’t ever make much sense to me as to why anyone would watch the same movie multiple times in like a one-month time span.

And then Everything Everywhere All At Once came out, and I saw it again the week after I saw it the first time, and then I understood. What a fantastic movie.

yo it’s coco jumbo

Tip value sure, but tip percentage? I mean think about it, the price of the food will go up, so the percent of that elevated food price will also go up. Like, if I bought a $20 meal and tipped 15%, that’s a $3. But if because of inflation or whatever, the $20 meal increases its price to $40, a 15% tip is now $6. The tip has gone up, but the percentage has remained the same.

So why are tips now going up to 21, 23, 25, hell I’ve seen a tablet that suggested 30%? (We all know the answer why, I’m being rherorical.)

No they don’t, this is tax fraud and illegal. Companies are not allowed to claim donation round-ups as their own for tax purposes. They may match donations, which they can claim, but they cannot claim money they did not spend as their own donations. You, however, can, if you keep your receipts.

“Just because it’s illegal doesn’t mean they don’t do it” – Fair point, but this is the IRS we’re talking about. I doubt big business are willing to fuck around that particular avenue. Other avenues, definitely.

the urge to downvote this is very strong, well done

okbuddyphd, shittymobilegameads, pizzacrimes, garfieldwithoutgarfield, just all the really stupid obscure ones that give me a chuckle browsing through.

…elaborate?

The twitter account is a satire account. They’re trying to stir the pot.