In what way? I use it a lot and feel like it’s still on par with the older versions. It’s got some annoying “Microsoft-y” things typical to them from the last 10 years or so but I think the core functionality is still intact.
I think it’s mostly because they keep trying to push other services down your throat. For example, opening a link in Outlook opens it in Edge, even when your default browser is something else. I can’t use Edge for that link, I’m not signed into stuff there. So now, because of retarded decisions like that, Outlook actually is missing basic features that Hotmail in the 90s had.
The extent to which something is held back or delayed.
Considering that the features being complained about impede the user, calling those features “retarded” is an adequate description.
It is also in-fitting with the definition of lacking of intellectual development; as mentioned, other programs do not feature such impediments, and in the case of Office 365, may actually be a regression of features.
Are there handguns small enough to fit inside a Petri dish? Or do you just aim the handgun at the Petri dish? Does the handgun need to be loaded? If it must be loaded, will blanks suffice? Does a larger caliber reduce the time needed to aim the handgun at the Petri dish? Is there a specific distance to the dish from which one must aim the handgun? Are rifles, shotguns, and machine guns specifically excluded? Will a sword work? It’s generally made of the same kind of material as a handgun. Is it necessary to stand on a chair while wearing a lab coat while aiming the handgun? Can two hands be used to aim the handgun? Does engaging the handgun’s safety have any effect on the contents of the Petri dish?
I don’t know of any handguns small enough to fit into a petri dish. The handgun must be loaded and fired at the petri dish. A large caliber will be easier to aim since it would decrease the need for accuracy. Close range is a better distance. Shotguns and machine guns would do an even better job, rifles are fine. A sword decreases the likelihood of destroying a virus because of its low energy. Standing on a chair while wearing a lab coat makes you look cooler. Two hands can be used to aim the gun if it helps you. The handgun will not fire with the safety on, thus decreasing the probability of destroying the virus.
The internet has proven to be very clever with its “loss” memes. I keep seeing innovative and/or fun applications of it before I ever feel they’re getting stale.
The square root of negative 1 is “i”. The “i” referrs to an imaginary number. When you square a number (e.g. 2^2 ) the result will always be positive. This is because you are multiplying the number with itself, and a negative number multiplied by another negative number will be positive. So -2 * -2 = 4, -3 * -3 = 9, and so on.
A square root is the inverse of this. It attempts to find what the original number was that was squared, so sqrt(4) = 2, sqrt(9) = 3, and so on. However, what do you do if you have sqrt(-4)? There’s no way for a square to result in a negative number, so the result must be imaginary. So sqrt(-4) = 2i, sqrt(-9) = 3i, and so on. As such, sqrt(-1) = i.
For the next part, when you divide one number by another, it is sometimes referred to as [first number] over [second number].
Finally, 8, well, sounds like “ate”.
So sqrt(-1)/8 = i/8 = i over eight= I over ate.
(Sorry if this came off as condescending near the end, I’m trying to be thorough in case you aren’t a native English speaker)
Not my argument but causality is a principle of the universe and may not be applicable to entities which exist outside of it.
The universe is bound by physical rules but something which exists outside of it may not be. Of course this is pure conjecture but you can find interesting theological arguments beyond creationists.
The argument I’ve heard is “It must stop somewhere, and whatever it stops at, we’ll call that god”. It’s not a good argument, because it then hopes that you conflate the Judeo-Christian deity with that label and make a whole bunch of assumptions.
It’s often paired with woo that falls down to simply asking “Why?”, such as “Nothing could possibly be simpler than my deity”
Agreed, the big issue with their argument here is that “god” implies sentience, which isn’t something we have any reason to assume exists for whatever’s at the “stop somewhere” point. If energy was the starting point for example, I doubt these people would be down with calling heat a god
On the contrary, I’d argue energy mostly meets many of the philosophical criteria for God.
Omnipotence: It literally is what drives stuff to happen.
Omnipresence: It is present to some degree in all things everywhere for all time, though you could argue about vacuum.
Omniscience: See omnipresence, although having knowledge implies some level of consciousness, which is pretty debatable. My psychedelic phase tells me that it’s totally a thing, but I’ll be the first to admit that’s not a rational argument.
Omnibenevolence: I don’t understand why God needs to be good.
I mean your argument stumbles at the exact point of my original comment. We have no reason to think it has any form of consciousness, and therefore no reason to believe it’s omniscient. On top of that, even if it was conscious, arguing it’s omniscient because it’s omnipresent assumes that it isn’t a collection of distinct consciousnesses and is instead one giant being, which we also have no reason to believe one possibility over the other.
If I remember correctly from my hazy years of school philosophy classes, it was Thomas Aquinas who suggested it. Who was a friar, so that’s why the assumption of the religion.
Also, I understood the core idea being that God isn’t what IS the beginning, but that the point where human mind can’t comprehend beyond is God. Which, back then, and even now, I considered to be a lazy copout for a philosopher, as the point of a philosopher is to test the limits of our understanding.
Then again, for friar to state that the end solution is not god for their thinkings, at that time and place, would’ve probably result in being positioned as a centerpiece of a bonfire.
It’s also a bad argument, because the concept of things being ‘created’ is an entirely human one. It’s us who decided that if a pile of pre-existing atoms are moved into the shape of a chair, we’ll say that chair was ‘created’.
Aside from this conceptual creation, nothing is ever created in the universe, as far as we know. Atoms don’t ever just pop into existence out of thin air.
I have heard the argument that the universe was just as well ‘created’ in the conceptual sense, so everything existed beforehand, it was just moved into a shape that we recognize as ‘universe’ today.
But that would still mean there’s no argument for a creator and of course, this is simply not what most people mean when they talk about the creation of the universe.
At their highest it was estimated that the Appalachians were comparable to the Himalayas, with the potential for multiple Everest height mountains along the chain.
I guess, because taller mountains need a bigger/heavier base (Mnt Everest is only a few km over it’s base, stone is too brittle) and a too heavy base gets “liquid” on, or literally under the plate (it’s magma underneath).
Only guessing though.
But then there’s Himalaya and the whole mongolian ranges on the same plate…
Seeing it like that, we are beings of energy, existing on the thin skin of a ball of molten stone, revolving around a ball of fire.
Mountain bases can support a lot. Everest is not terribly tall from its base, true, but Denali is 5500 meters from base to top and Mauna Kea rises to 10000 meters over base.
Its also a bit of an incorrect picure to think of the interior magma as a liquid. It can flow, but it can also sieze up or crack. Its an in-between, like corn starch and water.
Its indirectly gravity. The taller the mountain, the more eroding force can be pleced on it. Water travels faster and therefore cuts deeper.
Everest is still uplifting fairly quickly at 1mm a year, but its also eroding at roughly the same pace and won’t get significantly taller than it is now. The same is true for the rest of the Himalaya as well, the whole range is eroding at a very high pace.
The Himalaya are home to some very spectacular canyons, including the largest canyon above water. The geology there is on full display and incredible.
Plate tectonics and isostasy: Ocean ridges can only push so much and the denser a mountain range is, the higher the stress on the crust and mantle material.
The scottish highlands are the continuation of the appalachians. Those long striations you can easily see on heightmaps is pretty much the most easily noticeable features of both ranges.
Those barbaric Brits let it stand out in the open, so untill they learn how to take proper care of it, we have declared ourselves unilaterally to be the guardians of the monument and so we're absolutely justified in taking it.
science_memes
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.