No has said it because it’s not true.

My favorite version of this proof:

Let S be the subset of natural numbers that are not interesting. Suppose by way of contradiction that S is inhabited. Then by the well ordering principle of natural numbers, there is a least such element, s in S. In virtue of being the least non interesting number, s is in fact interesting. Hence s is not in S. Since s is in S and not in S, we have derived a contradiction. Therefore our assumption that S is inhabited must be false. Thus S is empty and there are no non interesting numbers.

There’s a general negative attitude towards chromium browsers due to some anticompetitive practices pulled by Google in addition to privacy concerns and probably some more issues I’m not aware of. So that includes chrome, but also edge and most other chromium based browsers.

It is. Either we need guns for protection and it is okay to point them at people in certain circumstances, or we don’t need guns for protection and they should be outlawed beyond certified uses like sport shooting, hunting, and collecting. I don’t understand your seeming belief that guns are okay to own, but not okay to use.

The definition I’m aware of for non associative algebras has them distributive by default, so I believe the chain of equations is valid.

It’s not the same, and you kinda answered your own question with that quote. Consider what happens when an object defines both dunder bool and dunder len. It’s possible for dunder len to return 0 while dunder bool returns True, in which case the falsy-ness of the instance would not depend at all on the value of len

Interesting. I think it isn’t unital either otherwise Ω=0.

0=Ω+Ω=Ω+ΩΩ=Ω(1+Ω)=ΩΩ=Ω

For some reason, people will sometimes flip the fraction when calculating decreasing percentages, so this roughly means that the old number of crossings is beyond one hundred percent greater than the current number of border crossings. It’s really dumb

Yeah. That makes sense. It is definitely a real problem.

I respectfully disagree. Its thesis is simply that you can have a better life if you stay alive. The “proof” is simply all the changes the artist went through in order to find a better life. The changes aren’t supposed to be a recipe on how to make your life better - I don’t think the artist is telling people to divorce their spouses. There isn’t anything “just be happy” about getting a divorce.

No. I’m just wrong, lol

I think that means alcohol poisoning

It actually means tuberculosis

Python and Java are barely comparable. I adore both languages equally and use them about the same amount at work. They are just different tools better suited to different tasks.

Not unless someone methodologically captures all the accounts through interviews and surveys and turns it into one.

I agree that anecdotes aren’t worthless, but for different reasons. There’s actually a saying that goes, “the plural of anecdote isn’t data.” Anecdotes are just stories. They aren’t data points and they aren’t peer reviewed. If you want to turn anecdotes into data, you have to do the proper interviews and surveys to actually build a dataset and then get the peer review, but at that point we aren’t talking about anecdotes anymore.

Ah. That makes sense. Thanks for the explanation!

Not sure I understand. Are you agreeing that the moon landing happened but you also claim the footage is faked? Do you have any reasons to support that? You mention something about radio technology from the 1920s, but the moon landing occurred nearly 50 years later, so I hardly see how that is relevant.

Edit: I misread your comment. Thanks to @turmacar@lemmy.world for pointing it out.

Yeah, I’m gonna need more than your incredulity to convince me. Like, fun that you think it is inconceivable, but your inability to imagine has no bearing on reality. Especially when there is plenty of evidence to suggest they actually filmed and broadcasted it live. For example, the fact that a live television broadcast was a primary goal of the mission, or the fact that RCA made custom TV cameras for the Apollo program , or that the broadcast lasted for hours, or any of the analyses out there that shows the video is likely real. Also, no one suggested that the Apollo astronauts had a camera crew with them - what a bizarre thing to mention.

Housing is taxed at the value of the property, not the difference between the value of the property and the purchase price.

Why stop there? They’re just as real as any number.