Honestly, what were you expecting? There just can’t be any Utopic website or group that won’t fight at all. People moved over to Lemmy because they hated Spez’ decisions, not because they were these mythical, superior moral beings that only help others out of selfless reasons. Sure we all have values and principles but that does not excuse us of our faults.
Point proven. I was just stating my opinion and people feel like they need to dogpile, despite the fact they actually agree with what I’m fucking saying.
If windows 12 is a subscription like the rumors say, it might finally push me to Linux. Right now I haven’t moved over just cause there hasn’t been a particularly annoying thing to do it yet
Or the 200.covers of Last Christmas. Seriously. Why? One time.they played 3 back to back, all different. It must be super fucking cheap to license or it’s got “buy shit” subliminally caked in it.
In the UK in the 1960s the Government fabricated “evidence” about train use so they could cut about 70% of the railways and sell the land on. It was known as the Beeching Report iirc.
for anyone curious, here’s a “constructive” explanation of why a^0^ = 1. i’ll also include a “constructive” explanation of why rational exponents are defined the way they are.
anyways, the equality a^0^ = 1 is a consequence of the relation
a^m+1^ = a^m^ • a.
to make things a bit simpler, let’s say a=2. then we want to make sense of the formula
2^m+1^ = 2^m^ • 2
this makes a bit more sense when written out in words: it’s saying that if we multiply 2 by itself m+1 times, that’s the same as first multiplying 2 by itself m times, then multiplying that by 2. for example: 2^3^ = 2^2^ • 2, since these are just two different ways of writing 2 • 2 • 2.
setting 2^0^ is then what we have to do for the formula to make sense when m = 0. this is because the formula becomes
2^0+1^ = 2^0^ • 2^1^.
because 2^0+1^ = 2 and 2^1^ = 2, we can divide both sides by 2 and get 1 = 2^0^.
fractional exponents are admittedly more complicated, but here’s a (more handwavey) explanation of them. they’re basically a result of the formula
(a^m^)^n^ = a^m•n^
which is true when m and n are whole numbers. it’s a bit more difficult to give a proper explanation as to why the above formula is true, but maybe an example would be more helpful anyways. if m=2 and n=3, it’s basically saying
(a^2^)^3^ = (a • a)^3^ = (a • a) • (a • a) • (a • a) = a^2•3^.
it’s worth noting that the general case (when m and n are any whole numbers) can be treated in the same way, it’s just that the notation becomes clunkier and less transparent.
anyways, we want to define fractional exponents so that the formula
(a^r^)^s^ = a^r^ • a^s^
is true when r and s are fractional numbers. we can start out by defining the “simple” fractional exponents of the form a^1/n^, where n is a whole number. since n/n = 1, we’re then forced to define a^1/n^ so that
a = a^1/n•n^ = (a^1/n^)^n^.
what does this mean? let’s consider n = 2. then we have to define a^1/2^ so that (a^1/2^)^2^ = a. this means that a^1/2^ is the square root of a. similarly, this means that a^1/n^ is the n-th root of a.
how do we use this to define arbitrary fractional exponents? we again do it with the formula in mind! we can then just define
a^m/n^ = (a^1/n^)^m^.
the expression a^1/n^ makes sense because we’ve already defined it, and the expression (a^1/n^)^m^ makes sense because we’ve already defined what it means to take exponents by whole numbers. in words, this means that a^m/n^ is the n-th square root of a, multiplied by itself m times.
i think this kind of explanation can be helpful because they show why exponents are defined in certain ways: we’re really just defining fractional exponents so that they behave the same way as whole number exponents. this makes it easier to remember the definitions, and it also makes it easier to work with them since you can in practice treat them in the “same way” you treat whole number exponents.
My big ex left me for a rich guy customer she met at work selling high end watches, who dumped her a couple years later. She’s now fat and alone at 40.
Her once traumatic “you know this hurts me too” parting line puts a smile on my face now. Sometimes following your exes is fun.
Like, it’s not like she took a kid, or sullied my name, or took money, or ruined the life of anyone close to me. She just kinda deliberately and very dramatically broke my heart.
I’m fine now; it definitely altered the course of my life and definitely caused a lot of pain, struggle, isolation, depression, humiliation, anxiety, etc. And a decade ago I was sure I hoped she’d face the same. Well she’ll face all of what she put me through… And way more… Under the threat of death.
It felt like finding out your hero is a fraud, if that makes sense. Like “Oh, this is actually not what I wanted at all. This is not cool. This sucks. And is actually pretty depressing.”
I agree that you should not wish harm on them, but don’t downplay how bad heartbreak can be. It affects both your physical and mental health, and I’m certain the latter of which can last a long time, not so sure if the physical health gets affected as permanently or not. Anyway, mental health damage alone can have terrible effects on your life.
Also, the other things you mentioned are bad too, but those usually happen in addition to heartbreak, so it’s easy to think that those are worse but heartbreak aside they have their own level of terribleness.
I’d accept Maria’s as the only Christmas song anyone is allowed to play if it meant that they never played goddamn fucking awful Wonderful Christmastime ever again!
y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y`
I decided when I saw this that if a boss ever tries to hand me this I will hand it back and say “I am going to quit before I administer this to you rectally. Bye.” and walk out.
memes
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.