irishsultan

The word epidemic does not imply contagiousness, not in the medical context and therefore definitely not outside of it.

You've used reasonable twice, but haven't explained how it's reasonable.

So let me get this right: It's okay for a blind person to write content about accessibility being trash, but it's not okay for a privileged person without disabilities to share that content.

I'm not sure how that's supposed to be a reasonable point of view. Keeping the problems nicely hidden from the larger community is not going to help anyone. Of course merely talking about a problem isn't going to solve it either, but it's more likely to lead to solutions in the long term.

Aren't discrete and discreet homophones?

I'm very confused, the author talks about having to charge a device instead of replacing batteries and blames it on Lithium-ion batteries, instead of doing the sensible thing and blaming it on devices with non-replaceable batteries.

The form factor of AA and AAA batteries (which the author prefers) exists with all kinds of chemistries, including Lithium-ion nowadays, you can recharge them, but while you are doing that you can also put new batteries in your device and use it immediately.

Q is indeed dense in R, but firstly it’s very clear that there isn’t an equal number of them because rational numbers are a subset of the real numbers and there exists at least one irrational number (I pick “e”) that is in R but not in Q. So R must be at least bigger than Q.

This isn't a correct explanation, because I can use the same explanation to show that there are more integers than that there are even integers.

"it’s very clear that there isn’t an equal number of them because even numbers (let's call it E) are a subset of the natural numbers (let's call that N) and there exists at least one odd number (I pick 1) that is in N but not in E. So N must be at least bigger than E."

I don't see how you could interpret "a != b != c" as equivalent to "not (a == b == c)" in the first place. In the first expression a doesn't equal b and b doesn't equal c (no restriction on a and c). In the second expression you could have a == b, but b != c (and vice versa), clearly that's not equivalent to the first expression.

It may look obvious to you, but someone will interpret “the same value” as literally the same.

But it is literally the same? Numbers are immutable, so there is a performance optimization where you can avoid using pointers internally, but the fact that they are immutable also means there is no way to distinguish between them being the same value and them being "different instances".

If you do `let a = []; let b = a; a = [1]` would your students expect that b equals [1] or would they understand that a and b now contain different arrays? If the latter, then why would think that after `let a = 22; let b = a; a = 50;` b also equals 50?

Sorting your data before searching it will only pay off if you need to search multiple things. If instead you need to search for one specific thing then going through things linearly is O(n) while sorting and searching the sorted result will be O(n log(n)).

TeX and Metafont have version numbers that are approaching pi and e respectively, so the sensible way is to read these as decimals.

Depends on your shell, if you execute `which -a cd` it will show you /usr/bin/cd in addition to the built-in command.

(zsh has which as a built in command, apparently bash doesn't, which causes the different output). It's unclear to me what /usr/bin/cd actually accomplishes though, even in bash.

(final edit I hope, I found an explanation of sorts for /usr/bin/cd: https://unix.stackexchange.com/a/50060)

IANAL, but I think the right comparison for standby power usage would be the power usage in sleep, not in idle.

bc and dc are arbitrary precision. By using -l you are specifying that it should keep track of 20 decimal digits (plus you are importing some extra stuff).

You can try higher precision by setting the scale.

    $ echo "scale = 100; (2/3)*3 - 2" | bc 
    -.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
    0000000000000000000000000000000002

When they tell you "the price is low if A is the case, and high if A is not the case" and you say "I'll take the lower price" and A is not the case then you are deceiving them.

Imagine the expansion rate starts out at 2. Then 1 day later it's 1.5, after 1 more day it's 1.25 and after another day it's 1.125.

Hopefully you can see that if this series continues then the expansion rate is always dropping, but it's headed towards 1, not 0. (And if expansion rate of 1 is too confusing in this context imagine if it starts out at 3 and goes to 2.5, 2.25, 2.125, ..., it still is always decreasing, but it will never be less than 2 which means the universe keeps expanding).

1 januari toegevoegd sounds like you're adding the date. If you're going to write it as a sentence it ought to have something like "Op 1 januari", and in that case it actually doesn't matter whether you put the toegevoegd before or after "op 1 januari". But I agree, nothing wrong with "Toegevoegd: 1 januari".

You need to take a closer look at the Pages sidebard, there is for example this https://ruby-doc.org/3.2.2/syntax/pattern_matching_rdoc.html

It doesn't make sense at all, if you see them as a sequence (which is wrong, sets are not ordered) then after taking the first 3 elements the odd numbers are at 5 and the naturals are only at 3, clearly the odd numbers are approaching infinity faster.

If you don't see sets as a sequence then neither is approaching anything.

Consider the following sets: the primes (let's call it P), the odd numbers (let's call that O), the odd numbers except for 3 (and let's call this O3).

Using your definition O would be equal in size to P, P would be equal in size to O3, but O3 would be smaller in size than O.

Unless state boundaries suddenly become convex it's definitely impossible. Ignoring state boundaries you have the issue that you need approximately equal numbers of population. It's possible that you can still tile the plane with convex shapes, but I'm not quite sure how to approach a proof (or disproof).

What you're describing seems to be the D'Hondt method which favors larger parties, not smaller parties.

According to wikipedia even shakespeare parodied the style of subtitles in "Twelfth Night, or What You Will", so again much older than 1929.

The first element of an array is usually indexed by 0 (usually here means in most modern programming languages). The second element is usually indexed by 1 etc. So the eight bit in a byte is indexed by 7, but that doesn't suddenly make it the 7th bit.

It doesn't matter for you personally, but it kind of matters globally. If everyone hits that same inefficiency at the same time then there needs to be a lot of extra capacity in the electric grid that can be spun up during a small part of the year.

That first quote (as well as the rest of the article) supports the view that people tend to underestimate the usefulness of procedures they are not yet using and especially to overestimate their own abilities. It also shows that social pressure is the opposite of what it was in Semelweiss time, even people who feel they are above such things start using them (and then some of them get convinced that they were wrong).

The part you quoted from your second link directly contradicts your claim that most surgeons don't think it improves safety (even if the 54.7% is among the 93.6% that use it that still gives 51% that think it improves safety).

not quite deterministic when you consider multithreading and monte carlo search.

That's not always the right behaviour either.

`#set_table_name` was replaced by `#table_name=` in ActiveRecord, so (especially around the time this changed when you might have projects in older and newer versions) it would be a likely mistake to make. I'm reasonably certain this is not the only case where a setter existed without `=` as part of the name where later library updates changed it to one with `=` (or the other way around).

No, that's not correct, that unit while intended to be a universal measure of distance never was called a meter (the "inventor" wanted to call it "toise universalle"), all that comes from the wikipedia page you linked to, so the only remaining question is whether you can call it the "original definition".

I don't think you can call it the original definition, because (a) that definition never got any universal acceptance (not even among scientists), (b) didn't work (as it gave different results on different locations) and (c) wasn't particularly close in value to the current definition.

In any reasonable definition of what a median is then there is either a unique value, or the mean between the two middle elements is a median, so it's perfectly reasonable to take the average (something which you can always do and gives a unique answer).

It doesn't specify a religion only in a very narrow sense. It rules out atheism as invalid, it rules out polytheistic religions (singular god).

Stating that somethings is the case does not make it so. The very article you link to states that it was intended to merge Christianity and patriotism, if you can't see how that makes it very much specific to a particular religion (although not specific to a specific church), then I don't see what evidence could convince you.