strong typing

Grrrrrrr. (this term is ambiguous but still very popular for some reason https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_safety#Strong_and_weak_typing)

There are other well defined ways to describe a type system, such as:

• Static vs dynamic
• Implicit vs manifest

e.g.

• Rust's is mostly static and sometimes optionally implicit
• Haskell's is static and optionally implicit
• Python's, Lua's, etc is dynamic and implicit
• C's is static and manifest

Practically, dynamic typing is quite different from no typing, such as with the B programming language, although I agree that it often defeats certain benefits of type systems.

For every MEAL YOU BUY A MEAL NO LOITERING POLICE ENFORCED

Thanks for coming to my (your) TED talk.

That was an amazing read, thank you.

This looks great!

Bullet hell games are normally not my thing

It turns out genre doesn't have to do with one's preferences as much as the distribution of execution/planning/adaptation challenges:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=NgHvdCcmQ4o

You can say fuck on the internet.

https://xkcd.com/1251/ (there is always an xkcd about it)

Fun fact: ctrl+Z does the same thing as u but in 4 more keystrokes because afterwards you have to type fg then press u. :3

(like and subscrib fr mor facts)

I'm not a huge fan.

Is there any reason to use a root account? If you had used sudo for each privilege needing command in stead it would have stopped you.

FYI this comic is by https://stupidtwink.thecomicseries.com/. (also the creator of such internet sensations as "The weed that makes you gay" https://stupidtwink.thecomicseries.com/comics/173/)

Who is this "Source" person, and how is their work so widely referenced and varied?

The best habit one can ever develop is to compulsively press the save keybind after every single edit.

Don't worry, this ends well.

https://piefed.blahaj.zone/comment/3791025

A near miss and a disaster are worlds apart in terms of consequence, but very close in terms of what went wrong.

May as well go through the proofs:

First, we need to establish that two infinities are equal in cardinality (aka size) if all their elements can be 1:1 mapped to each other.

So, to go from the reals within [0, 1] and [0, 2], we can multiply by 2. This maps every value within [0, 1] to every value within [0, 2], so these are of the same cardinality.

Where things get interesting is the proof that the reals within [0, 1] are of greater cardinality than every integer.

Say we have an arbitrary mapping from every integer to a real within [0, 1]:

0 -> 0.89236…
1 -> 0.47389…
2 -> 0.84776…
3 -> 0.18790…
4 -> 0.90542…
⋮           ⋱

This list contains every integer, but it does not contain every real number because we can always come up with a new one by ensuring at least one digit is different in each existing real:

0 ->  …8… ≠ 9
1 ->   …7… ≠ 8
2 ->    …7… ≠ 8
3 ->     …9… ≠ 0
4 ->      …2… ≠ 3
⋮           ⋱

          0.98803… is not within the list

Therefore, no 1:1 mapping between the integers and reals exists. Because the limiting factor is the amount of integers, the cardinality of the reals is greater than that of the integers.

Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor's_diagonal_argument

You fool! I would recognized kwrite's "just edited" orange anywhere.

Which means... this "old lua script" isn't old at all and hasn't even been saved.

PREPARE TO BE GARBAGE COLLECTED IN RITUAL COMPETITIVE PAIR PROGRAMMING

The first one is incorrect, the limit doesn't exist unless you specify whether you're coming from the left or right.

On another note, I think their student has invented a new symbol for "Does Not Exist".

The opposite angles made by 2 intersecting lines must be equal, so we know that m/3 + 75 = m/2 + 64.

::: spoiler From there we can solve it like any equation

 m/3 + 75  =  m/2 + 64
-m/3         -m/3
       75  =  m/6 + 64
      -64          -64
       11  =  m/6
       ×6      ×6
       66  =  m

:::

I love squarrel.