I think they were pointing out the structural issue with your statement. They info you are attempting to convey is correct. Your ability to do so is questionable.
I think they were pointing out the structural issue with your statement. They info you are attempting to convey is correct. Your ability to do so is questionable.
I’ve still got an Oculus CV1 with touch controllers. It’s never seemed like a good time to upgrade before. I’m feeling the hype for this.
Eugenics is not inherently bad, it’s just frequently used as an excuse to do really evil shit.
It’s not just the psycho assholes looking for people to hammer. It’s hard to want to engage with voice chat when the general public has no fucking concept of mic discipline. Nobody wants to hear the conversations happening around you. They don’t want to hear you eating. They certainly don’t want to hear your background music. Use push to talk.
A wealthy man from Soth Africa has weird views on eugenics? I’m shocked!
So I took a browse through your comment history out of idle curiosity. You’re an “um actually” concern troll that just looks for things to argue about. It’s pretty obvious you don’t actually care. Maybe you shouldn’t feel satisfaction with being a contrarian assbag for entertainment.
Are you sure that wasn’t just an attempted joke about the phrase asexual reproduction?
Now it’s a Z:\bra
Do the French dislike honey?
None of this has a point. We’re talking over a shitpost rant about common use of math symbols. Even the conclusion boils down to it being a context dependent matter of preference. I’m just disagreeing that the original question as posed should be interpreted with weak juxtaposition.
My argument is specifically that using no separation shows intent for which way to interpret and should not default to weak juxtaposition.
Choosing not to use (6/2)(1+2) implies to me to use the only other interpretation.
There’s also the difference between 6/2(1+2) and 6/2*(1+2). I think the post has a point for the latter, but not the former.
Honestly, I do disagree that the question is ambiguous. The lack of parenthetical separation is itself a choice that informs order of operations. If the answer was meant to be 9, then the 6/2 would be isolated in parenthesis.
Recreational weed was on the same ballot and both passed. Ohio actually managed to do two things right, which is a pleasant change of pace.
I’d be worried that this will be used as a screen to kill “undesirables” without scrutiny.
If somebody called me a seppo, I wouldn’t be offended, I’d just think they were kind of dumb. It’s just too silly to take seriously as an insult.
Well, no. That’s a kind of coffee.
It’s also called Gaia, but Gaians sounds silly.
It varies so greatly in quality that most of it just tastes like drinking a scented candle. It doesn’t help that I hate clove, which is frequently used in the spice blend.
By all means, try it if you get the chance. My experience with the flavor has been decidedly negative.
Have you considered that you might just be an asshole and people are responding accordingly?
a= “birds are dinos”
b= “dinos are reptiles”
c= “birds are reptiles”
Structure: If a then b, therefore c
a does not imply b without an additional statement (which we can assume from the rest would be “because birds are reptiles”)
You’ve basically just said birds are reptiles because birds are reptiles