I dump them into a sieve and rinse them off before transferring to another bowl. I also remove the squishy ones.
It should keep the mold spores away for a little longer.
I think I recall that all the classes should be identifiable by just their silhouette, and with certain designs, that certainly makes sense for the feet as well.
I know I’ve killed people from long range through a small hole in plenty of games, including the foot. Damage is damage, depending on the game.
Yes, I was a useless sniper in my younger years. I’m not proud of that. I tend to enjoy support type roles more in my old(er) age.
I was diagnosed with a swollen optic nerve a few weeks after getting Covid when I realized my vision was going dark in one of my eyes.
They did an mri to rule out any other causes and concluded it was from Covid.
Over then next few months the swelling of the nerve went away but the bottom 1/4 of my vision in that eye is still dark due to the nerve being damaged from it.
Theres been a number of other documented cases of this happening from Covid.
Absolutely. I heard it non-stop from my dad and my in laws. Listening to them act like it’s nothing even after it gave me partial vision loss drove me crazy.
Not only does my dad think it’s ’like the flu’, he keeps saying it IS ‘just the flu’. He thinks it’s the same virus and people are conspiring to control us by giving the flu a new name and then freaking out over it.
I’m so sorry you have to deal with this. I saw so many deaths and suffering due to this disease through records in the VA health system and it constantly enraged me. I can only imagine what it would do to someone impacted by it directly.
In my slightly covid unrelated case, intracranial tension changes cause very subtle sharpness/clearness vision changes. So look out for these things, there might be more problems associated with it! Like IIH, CSF leaks or venous stenosis. It can cause a wide variety of seemingly random neurological pressure changes. Beware of substances affecting it like caffeine, weed, fat-soluble thiamine and Lithium. These can reduce or induce serious problems especially if the intracranial pressure is unstable. And while these might possibly be useful, be aware it is poorly understood overall and can cause damage.
ITT a bunch of fucking losers claiming to have hearing problems and would rather be a dick in public than invest in proper headphones.
Note on the claim part, I don’t believe a fraction of the assholes here, just trying to justify their assholery. People with legitimate hearing issues tend to accept the support technology that’s readily available these days. I spend quite a bit of time around folks who are actually hard of hearing.
Well, the guy you are responding to is maybe only thinking of people whose hearing is diminished in some manner. Not people whose hearing is otherwise incapacitated through something like tinnitus or like the other poster in here who has auditory dyslexia. Both of whom may be inconvenienced by headphones or earbuds and have an easier time with speaker phone than those options. Maybe try to explain how you think they are being insensitive or lacking empathy rather than just accusing them of such without explanation.
Add to that the amount of headphones out there that do help with various ear issues is growing and the prices are not that heavy.
They have bone conduction ear phones now that can be picked up online. Your skull can hear for you now. This is the same technology as what hearing aids use and you can just wire it up as headphones to your phone now
I was just reading about these yesterday. They basically bypass your eardrum so they’re really good for people with hearing loss who still want to use headphones. Definitely check them out if you think they’ll work for you.
When someone calls and I expect it to be 60 seconds or less, I don’t wanna go fumbling in my bag for 30 seconds to find the headphones and spend another 20 making sure they hook up to my phone properly.
Plus, idk about hearing issues, but I have epilepsy and my seizures increase when I have long calls with the phone against my face OR with TWS earbuds in, which can apparently (and not too uncommonly) be triggered by the type of radiation they put off, even though it’s at very low levels. But just 3 inches further from my face and no problems. I know that’s not why a lot of people do it, and I still try not to in public, but there are various reasons that someone might.
I am sure this will get downvoted to the lowest level of hell, but when it comes to people doing this without a medical reason/just based on preference, I also just don’t know why a minor annoyance triggers such major anger in others. If I’m on a train for an hour and someone is talking the whole time, that’s annoying no matter how they’re doing it. If I pass someone on speaker in the grocery store, I don’t really let that 12 seconds affect the rest of my day, certainly not enough to harbor such hot feelings about it.
Sure, but I’d honestly also rather hear both sides of a stranger’s conversation than just one. Doesn’t feel better to me to be talking just as loud on the phone but have it against your ear than a few inches away
We use an older version of Outlook at work and it turns :) into 🙂 but not the emoji but the Wingdings smiley which is the letter J when you use a different font. I only found out after months when somebody asked me why I put so many J’s in my mails.
I don’t remember asking you a god damn thing Outlook 🤨
If there’s a bad decision that can be made, the Outlook development team made it. It’s a real shame that the industry standard is a hot garbage fire of a program.
I’ve had to re-disable auto correct options multiple times in outlook. I’m perfectly fine capitalizing my own letters because sometimes I type code snippets in emails and don’t want those being treated as if they are sentences that need grammar and spelling corrections. I don’t need your fucking angled quotes either.
Red or green underlines to say you think there’s a problem are ok. Changing what I’m typing without me telling you to is not.
Mac OS has autocorrect enabled by default on the entire operating system. Why TF would I want that when I’m typing with a full-sized physical keyboard? It’s especially annoying when you’re typing code. So yeah, I disabled all that crap within a couple of minutes. It’s super annoying.
A plane. A cheap, 2-4 seat prop plane. A full sim rig can fly ANY PLANE and spaceships too!
I am not in any way a sim gamer of any of these sorts. My inputs are keyboard, mouse, or controller. And I suck at everything I play, and I try to limit my gaming time (and expenditures on gaming).
A real plane would be most definitely satisfying in its own way, but Sim planes let you perform crazy maneuvers, fly places you wouldn’t be allowed to in real life, and fly aircraft that you would never even get a chance to see. Not to mention, the whole threat of death with real life flying.
Really good points that you bring up. I can agree with you fully now. Especially on the point of being able to do crazy tricks at no threat to your own real safety.
I would love to work on a project to build a thing that could reconfigure itself to match any existing cockpit. That would be sick. Maybe like a bunch of self-arranging robot building blocks and each has a different kind of switch or dial. Or each one can simulate it, hopefully in 3D with force feedback. They crawl into position and lock arms to form the cockpit. Send a command and the F-16 rearranges itself into an airbus 380. Or a corvette.
i feel we have different definitons of dad bod, it doesn’t mean beer belly lol
it just means not having a sixpack and being able to see every single muscle fibre, it’s what henry cavill looks like when he isn’t filming a movie where he needs chiseled abs.
I’m talking about that as well. Just because it’s Henry Cavill’s dad bod doesn’t mean I would want to watch a movie where Superman’s physique is that of a normal person.
GIFs have transparency, but not alpha blending so it would have jagged edges. When PNGs were first supported by IE, you had to do some crazy ActiveX scripting calls to make it work.
At the time, Microsoft had shut down the IE team since they had beaten Netscape in the browser wars. If it hadn’t been for Firefox, we would be stuck with that crappy PNG implementation!
Theoretically, yes. Functionally, no. When you go to pay for something with your infinite bills, would you rather pay with N number of 100 dollar bills or get your wheelbarrow to pay with 100N one dollar bills? The pile may be infinite, but your ability to access it is finite. Ergo, the “denser” pile is worth more.
Yeah, this is what it comes down to. In calculus, infinity doesn’t exist, you just approach it when you take the limit. You’ll approach it “quicker” with the 100 dollar bills, so to speak
You’re thinking of a different calculus problem in this case we are comparing the growth rate of 100*infty vs infty. In calculus, you cannot accelerate the growth of \infty. If you put infty / infty your answer will be undefined (you can double check with Wolfram), similarly, if you put 100*infty / infty, you will also get undefined
If we’re adding real world hypotheticals you would be paying for your shit on card anyway. You just go to the bank with how ever many truck loads of $100 bills when ever you needed a top up. Secondly you wouldn’t be doing it yourself, you pay someone else to do it. Thirdly as soon as the government found out you effectively had a money printer they would put you in prison or disappear you to prevent you from collapsing their money system, not to mention the serial numbers on the notes would have to be fraudulent because they wouldn’t match up with mints. And finally any physical object with an infinite quantity would be the size of the universe, likely causing either black hole or destroying the universe and us along with it. So in closing what sounds like a great situation is probably worth any potential risk
To establish whether one set is of a larger cardinality, we try to establish a one-to-one correspondence between the members of the set.
For example, I have a very large dinner party and I don’t want to count up all the forks and spoons that I’ll need for the guests. So, instead of counting, everytime I place a fork on the table I also place a spoon. If I can match the two, they must be an equal number (whatever that number is).
So let’s start with one $1 bill. We’ll match it with one $100 bill. Let’s add a second $1 bill and match it with another $100 bill. Ad infinitum. For each $1 bill there is a corresponding $100 bill. So there is the same number of bills (the two infinite sets have the same cardinality).
You likely can see the point I’m making now; there are just as many $1 bills as there are $100 bills, but each $100 bill is worth more.
You’re right that we don’t need to, but mathematicians can use this method to prove that two infinite sets are the same size. This is how we know that the infinite set of whole numbers is the same size as the infinite set of integers. We can also prove that the set of real numbers is larger than the set of whole numbers.
I’m not quite sure how else to explain it, so I’ll link a Numberphile video where they do the demonstration on paper: www.youtube.com/watch?v=elvOZm0d4H0&t=19s . Here you can see why it’s useful to try to establish this 1-1 correspondence. If you can’t do so, then the size of the two infinite sets are not equal.
But the creation of each additional bill devalues the currency. At some point the value of all this paper money is negative because it’s not worth keeping and storing. The point at which they cross from positive to negative value would give them zero value, and they’d be equal.
You likely can see the point I’m making now; there are just as many $1 bills as there are $100 bills, but each $100 bill is worth more.
But the monetary value of the bills in each stack still adds up to infinity for both. It’s like having an uncapped Internet connection at 56 KBit/s versus 100 MBit/s: You can download all the things with both, but that alone doesn’t make them equal.
I think you’re misunderstanding the math a bit here. Let me give an example.
If you took a list of all the natural numbers, and a list off all multiples of 100, then you’ll find they have a 1 to 1 correspondence.
Now you might think “Ok, that means if we add up all the multiples of 100, we’ll have a bigger infinity than if we add up all the natural numbers. See, because when we add 1 for natural numbers, we add 100 in the list of multiples of 100. The same goes for 2 and 200, 3 and 300, and so on.”
But then you’ll notice a problem. The list of natural numbers already contains every multiple of 100 within it. Therefore, the list of natural numbers should be bigger because you’re adding more numbers. So now paradoxically, both sets seem like they should be bigger than the other.
The only resolution to this paradox is that both sets are exactly equal. I’m not smart enough to give a full mathematical proof of that, but hopefully that at least clears it up a bit.
Adding up 100 dollar bills infinitely and adding up 1 dollar bills infinitely is functionally exactly the same as adding up the natural numbers and all the multiples of 100.
The only way to have a larger infinity that I know of us to be uncountably infinite, because it is impossible to have a 1 to 1 correspondence of a countably infinite set, and an uncountably infinite set.
~~I was thinking that, bill for bill, the $100 bill will always be greater value. But I can see the plausibility in your argument that, when we’re counting both the value of the members of each set, the value of the $100 bill pile can always be found somewhere in the series of $1 bills. The latter will always “catch up” so to speak. But, if this line of reasoning is true, it should apply to other countably infinite sets as well. Consider the following two examples.
First, the number of rational numbers between 0 and 1 is countably infinite. That is, we can establish a 1-1 correspondence between the infinite set of fractions between 0-1 and the infinite set of positive integers. So the number of numbers is the same. But clearly, if we add up all the infinite fractions between 0 and 1, they would add up to 1. Whereas, adding up the set of positive integers will get us infinity.
Second, there are equally many positive integers as there are negative integers. There is a 1-1 correspondence such that the number of numbers is the same. However, if we add up the positive integers we get positive infinity and if we add up all the negative integers we get negative infinity. Clearly, the positive is quantitatively greater than the negative.
In these two cases, we see that a distinction needs to be made between the infinite number of members in the set and the value of each member. The same arguably applies in the case of the dollar bills.~~
Ah but you see if you take into consideration it’s talking about bills and not money in an account you have to take into consideration the material reality. A person who receives more 100s would have an easier time depositing and spending the money therefore they have higher utility, therefore they are worth more than the 1s.
Sure they may have the same amount of numbers (and 1, 2,3… May even be larger because you’ll eventually repeat in the 1:1 examile) but in reality the one with the 100s will have an easier time using their objects (100 dollar bills) than the ones who pick the 1 dollar bills
Infinity is a concept that can’t be reached so it can’t be counted up fully. Its not a hard number so you can’t get a full value from it since there is always another number to reach. Therefore you only peak at ∞ in any individual moment. You can never actually count it.
If you’re responding to the part about countable infinity and uncountable infinity, it’s a bit of a misnomer, but it is the proper term.
Countably infinite is when you can pick any number in the set and know what comes next.
Uncountably infinite is when it’s physically impossible to do that, such as with a set of all irrational numbers. You can pick any number you want, but it’s impossible to count what came before or after it because you could just make the decimal even more precise, infinitely.
The bizarre thing about this property is that even if you paired every number in a uncountably infinite set (such as a set of all irrational numbers) with a countably infinite set (such as a set of all natural numbers) then no matter how you paired them, you would always find a number from the uncountably infinite set you forgot. Infinitely many in fact.
It’s often demonstrated by drawing up a chart of all rational numbers, and pairing each with an irrational number. Even if you did it perfectly, you could change the first digit of the irrational number paired with one, change the second digit of the irrational number paired with two, and so on. Once you were done, you’d put all the new digits together in order, and now you have a new number that appears nowhere on your infinite list.
It’ll be at least one digit off from every single number you have, because you just went through and changed those digits.
Because of that property, uncountably infinite sets are often said to be larger than countably infinite sets. I suppose depending on your definition that’s true, but I think of it as just a different type of infinity.
Sure if you’re talking about a concept like money, but we’re talking about dollar bills and 100 dollar bills, physical objects. And if you’re talking about physical objects you have to consider material reality, if you’re choosing one or the other the 100 dollar bills are more convinient. Therefore they have more utility, which makes them have a higher value.
What is worth? Would you rather have 500 1s or 5 100s? You already said you’d take the 100s, why? I would take the 100s because I personally value the convenience of 100s more than the 1s, so to me, a single 100 is worth more than 100 1s. Worth doesn’t need to imply the monetary value of the money.
The convenience/utility makes the 100s worth more even if they’re both valued the same
Don’t care. They both get deposited at my bank the same.
You already said you’d take the 100s, why?
An acknowledgement to the point you were making that was a digression from the discussion at hand. My mistake apparently.
I would take the 100s because I personally value the convenience of 100s more than the 1s, so to me, a single 100 is worth more than 100 1s.
I personally would not accept a Genie wish for either as the mass would create a black hole that would destroy the universe. There is no “practical consideration” when dealing with infinities. Knowing how to work with infinities is useful for complex mathematics, but there is no real world application until you simplify away the infinities.
Worth doesn’t need to imply the monetary value of the money.
It very much does imply the monetary value of the money. It can mean other things if you want to define it as such, but you need to before hand in such a case. It was not defined differently by OP.
I see I made a mistake by acknowledging your argument, and trying to indicate my understanding there of, before trying to get back to the point at hand that an infinite number of $1 bills is worth the same amount as an infinite number of $100 bills.
I was actually discussing this with my wife earlier and her position is that the 1 dollar bills are better because it’s tough to find somebody who’ll split a 100, and 100s don’t work in vending machines.
I thought the hundreds would be better because you could just deposit them in the bank and use your card, and banks often have limits on how many individual bills you can deposit at once, so hundreds are way better for that.
You’re right that they’re the same size but you’re mistaken when you try to assign a total value to the stack. Consider breaking each $100 bill into 100 $1 bills. The value is the same, clearly. So for each pair, you have a $1 bill and a small stack of 100 $1 bills. Now combine all singles back together in an infinite stack. Then combine all stacks of 100 into an infinite stack.
And you know what? Both infinite stacks are identical. They have the same value.
You could make an argument that infinite $100 bills are more valuable for their ease of use or convenience, but infinite $100 bills and infinite $1 bills are equivalent amounts of money. Don’t think of infinity as a number, it isn’t one, it’s infinity. You can map 1000 one dollar bills to every single 100 dollar bill and never run out, even in the limit, and therefore conclude (equally incorrectly) that the infinite $1 bills are worth more, because infinity isn’t a number. Uncountable infinities are bigger than countable ones, but every countable infinity is the same.
Another thing that seems unintuitive but might make the concept in general make more sense is that you cannot add or do any other arithmetic on infinity. Infinity + infinity =/= 2(infinity). It’s just infinity. 10 stacks of infinite bills are equivalent to one stack of infinite bills. You could add them all together; you don’t have any more than the original stack. You could divide each stack by any number, and you still have infinity in each divided stack. Infinity is not a number, you cannot do arithmetic on it.
100 stacks of infinite $1 bills are not more than one stack of infinite $1 bills, so neither is infinite $100 bills.
You can map 1000 one dollar bills to every single 100 dollar bill and never run out, even in the limit, and therefore conclude (equally incorrectly) that the infinite $1 bills are worth more, because infinity isn’t a number.
Yes, the mapping that you’re describing isn’t useful; but that doesn’t invalidate the simple test that we can do to prove that two infinite sets are the same. And the test is pretty intuitive in some cases. If for every fork there is a spoon, then they must be an equal number. And if for every positive whole number (e.g “2”) there is a negative whole number (e.g. “-2”), then the set of positive whole numbers and the set of negative whole numbers must be the same.
Another thing that seems unintuitive but might make the concept in general make more sense is that you cannot add or do any other arithmetic on infinity.
I agree with you that adding infinity to itself just gets you the same number. But now we’re starting to ask: just what is infinity? We could think of infinity as a collection of things or we could think of infinity like we do numbers (yes, I know infinity is not technically among the real numbers). In the latter sense we could have a negative infinity {-1…-2…-3…etc.} that is quantitatively “worth less” than a countable positive infinity. On the other hand, if we think of infinity as a collection of stuff, then you couldn’t have a negative infinity because you can’t have less than zero members in the set.
I’ll admit that I’m getting out of my depth here since I know this stuff from philosophical study rather than maths proper. As with anything, I’m happy to be proven wrong, but I’m quite sure about the 1-1 correspondence bit.
Your 1-1 relationship makes sense intuitively with a finite set but it breaks down with the mathematical concept of infinity. Here’s a good article explaining it, but DreamButt’s point of every set of countable infinite sets are equal holds true because you can map them. Take a set of all positive integers and a set of all positive, even integers. At first glance it seems like the second set is half as big right? But you can map them like this:
Set 1 | Set 2
1|2
2|4
3|6
4|8
5|10
6|12
If you added the numbers up on the two sets you would get 21 and 42 respectively. Set 2 isn’t bigger, the numbers just increased twice as fast because we had half as many to count. When you continue the series infinitely they’re the same size. The same applies for $1 vs $100 bills.
$1|$100
$2|$200
$3|$300
In this case the $1 bills are every integer while the $100 bills is the set of all 100’s instead of all even integers, but the same rule applies. Set two is increasing 100x faster but that’s because they’re skipping all the numbers in between.
I understand that both sets are equally infinite (same cardinality). And I do see the plausibility in your argument that, in each case, since there’s an infinite number of bills their value should be equally infinite. If your argument is correct, then I should revise my understanding of infinity. So maybe you can help me make sense of the following two examples.
First, the number of rational numbers between 0 and 1 is countably infinite. That is, we can establish a 1-1 correspondence between the infinite set of fractions between 0-1 and the infinite set of positive integers. So the number of numbers is the same. But clearly, if we add up all the infinite fractions between 0 and 1, they would add up to 1. Whereas, adding up the set of positive integers will get us infinity.
Second, there are equally many positive integers as there are negative integers. If we add up the positive integers we get positive infinity and if we add up all the negative integers we get negative infinity. Clearly, the positive is greater than the negative.
In these two cases, we see that a distinction needs to be made between the infinite number of members in the set and the value of each member. The same arguably applies in the case of the dollar bills.
But clearly, if we add up all the infinite fractions between 0 and 1, they would add up to 1.
0.9 and 0.8 are in that set, so they would add up to at least 1.7. In fact if you give me any positive number I can give you a (finite!) set of (distinct) fractions less than 1 which sum to more than that number. In other words, the sum is infinite.
I meant to say that we can infinitely divide the numbers between 0 and 1 and then match each with an integer. But I realized that the former wouldn’t be rational numbers, they would be real numbers.
That aside, I see now that the original idea behind the meme was mistaken.
I meant to say that we can infinitely divide the numbers between 0 and 1 and then match each with an integer. But I realized that the former wouldn’t be rational numbers, they would be real numbers.
That aside, I see now that the original idea behind the meme was mistaken.
Man living in a 120 year old house means it’s always wall roulette any time you want to hang anything. Is that a brick, or is it fake mortar with the consistency of hummus. Who knows let’s find out
No, it’s “D”: The cable that goes to your lights in the kitchen two rooms farther but some idiot decided to run it through the walls taking the scenic route.
Courtesy of Hype Williams (Harold Williams) the director of all these music videos.
From wikipedia:
Awards Williams has received for his video work include the Billboard Music Video Award for Best Director of the Year (1996), the Jackson Limo Award for Best Rap Video of the Year (1996) for Busta Rhymes’ “Woo Hah!! Got You All in Check”, the NAACP Image Award (1997), the 8th annual Music Video Production Association Award for Black Music Achievement (1997), MTV Video Music Award in the Best Rap Video (1998) category for Will Smith’s “Gettin’ Jiggy wit It”, MTV Video Music Award for Best Group Video (1999) for TLC’s “No Scrubs”, and the BET Award for Best Director (2006) for Kanye West’s “Gold Digger”.[4]
Listening to how that video was made was awesome. It's so simple and obvious when it's explained to you, even if it's not particularly obvious on its face.
memes
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.