Th4tGuyII

I was a bit of a picky eater when I was younger, but I’ve become much, much less so over the years - one of the few things I’ve never come around on is olives. The taste and texture combination just don’t work for me

I would definitely like to have duck more often. I only rarely get it for myself as a treat but god damn is it the best bird going.

Good resellers do, but I think my point still stands - why risk any of that when Microsoft doesn’t get your money either way?
MAS/Massgrave works effectively, is open source, is well-documented, and literally free.

Considering the grey market is filled with dodgy keys, it’d be better to just pirate, especially when there are easy and safe ways to do it like with MAS

If you must have MS office, then I’d go with MAS/Massgrave like others have said.

It’s well documented, requires minimal setup (if going default route), and is much less risky than going into the grey market for keys or downloading cracks elsewhere.

Haste makes waste - if you want quality content, let the dev and their team take the time they need.

Selotape? It’d have to be something that sticks on it’s own

Jlowpoke

Actually “rationalising the pipeline” would be getting rid of all the massively overpaid execs, rather than the people who actually make the Take-Two execs their money

I’d love to chance to play a bunch of nostalgic titles - just off the top of my head I’d play DOOM, Uplink, Darwinia, Morrowind, and my trashy favourite from that era Themepark world. There are definitely more if I had time to think about it.

Yeah - I do find it odd when people say Facebook is dying, because it really isn’t. Unless Zuckerberg pulls a Musk anytime soon, it isn’t going anywhere - unlike Xitter, Facebook is an advertising juggernaught that makes more than enough money to keep itself afloat.

And that’s not even mentioning Facebook groups, news pages, business pages, the market place, etc… they’ve got fingers in many different pies, and it shows.

And even more, while it may not be popular amongst tech savvy folks, it is still insanely popular amongst regular folks. I for one can vouch that a significant proportion of my non-techy friends use either it or Instagram as their primary social media.

Hell, that’s why messenger is up there too - everyone has Facebook, so everyone has messenger, making it extremely convenient to message people you know. It’s certainly why I use it a lot, it’s where my friends are.

Meta dominates social media even now - just look at your list. Of the top seven, over half of them are Meta.

We’re always told the people at the bottom rung of society, the people doing “entry level” jobs just need to work harder and harder to earn a proper living…

But how does that work really? Unlike a lot of high level jobs, none of these jobs just exist for the sake of existing, most of these “entry level” jobs are essential to society (we saw that much during the pandemic).

Somebody has to do them or society just doesn’t work, so don’t the people doing these literally essential jobs deserve to be paid a fair living wage? They’re working just as hard as the people above them, yet they’re paid peanuts in comparison

That’s the hill Pope Francis is willing to die on? - that Gender ideology is the ugliest danger today?
Not Russia’s endless onslaught against the Ukrainian people or Israel’s genocide against the Palestinian people?
Pope Francis needs to get outside more often.

You can only hope these were cleaned after their last use

The fucked up part is that barely a decade after his death - thanks to the efforts of Louis Pasteur - Semmelweis’s work went from so controversial they condemned him to his death, to becoming the basis for the field of aseptics

Pretty much. While it’s worth knowing that not everyone agrees on how implicit multiplication is prioritised, anywhere that everyone agreeing on the answer actually mattered, you wouldn’t write an equation as ambiguous as this one in the first place

The meme refers to the problem of handling implicit multiplication by juxtaposition.
Depending on what field you’re in, implicit multiplication takes priority over explicit multiplication/division (known as strong juxtaposition) rather than what you and a lot of people would assume (known as weak juxtaposition).

With weak juxtaposition you end up 9 just as you did, but with strong juxtaposition you end up with 1 instead.

For most people and most scenarios this doesn’t matter, as you’d never encounter such ambiguous equations outside of viral puzzles like this, but it is worth knowing that not all fields agree on how implicit multiplication is handled.

So you were taught strong juxtaposition then, where the implicit multiplication takes priority?

When the @onion said there were two different sets of rules, you know as well as I do that they meant strong vs. weak juxtaposition.

You’re right that in reality nobody would write an equation like this, and if they did they would usually provide context to help resolve it without resorting to having to guess…

But the point of this post is exactly to point out this hole that exists in the standard order of operations, the drama that has resulted from it, and to shine some light on it.

Picking a side makes no sense only if you have the context to otherwise resolve it… If you were told to solve this equation, and given no other context to do so, you would either have to pick a side or resolve it both ways and give both answers. In that scenario, crossing your arms and refusing to because “it doesn’t make sense” would get you nowhere.

In all honesty, I think you’re acting like the people who say things like “I’ve never used algebra, so it was worthless teaching me it as a kid” as though there aren’t people who would learn something out of this.

No, that’s just not what happened. “Strong juxtaposition,” while well-defined, is a post-hoc rationalization. Meaning in particular that people who believe that this expression is best interpreted with “strong juxtaposition” don’t really believe in “strong juxtaposition” as a rule. What they really believe is that communication is subtle and context dependent, and the traditional order of operations is not comprehensive enough to describe how people really communicate. And that’s correct.

I think you’re putting the cart before the horse here - there is definitely a communication issue around juxtaposition, but you’re acting as though strong juxtaposition is some kind of social commentary on the standard order of operations rather than the reality that it is an interpretation that arose due to ambiguity, just as weak juxtaposition did.

If it were people just trying to make a point, then why would it be so widely used and most scientific calculators are designed to use it, or allow its use. This debate exists because so many people ascribe to one or the other without thinking.

My degree specialization is in algebraic topology.

One - that does sound kind of cool

Two - You still have a mathematics degree do you not? You said this was an easy “unambiguous” problem to solve, so I don’t see how you’re prohibited from solving it…

The issue is that this question disregards and undermines my point and asks me to pick a side, arbitrarily, that (as I’ve already explained) I don’t actually believe in.

God saying stuff like that, you sound just like an enlightened centrist…

Anyways, even if you don’t want to comment on the strong vs. weak juxtaposition debate, unless you simply intend on never solving any equation with implicit multiplication by juxtaposition ever again, then you must have a way of interpreting it.

That is what you’re being asked to disclose, since you seem to be very certain that there is a correct way of resolving this. You’ve brought the question upon yourself.

If you don’t want to take a side, simply saying the rules are ambiguous and technically both positions are correct depending on what field you’re in is also a valid position…

But denying the problem all together is not productive.

I didn’t misread, you’re in denial.

In the first place I don’t think you’ve proven me wrong. As far as I can tell your comments still boil down to that you think the whole debate is wrong, and that engaging in the debate is dumb.

But I can say for certain that you either misread or deliberately misconstrued at least part of my reply, because when responding to me you removed the “you follow” from it, which changes the interpretation.

If you think that wasn’t what I said, feel free to go back and look.

Hopefully by this point in the comment you understand that I don’t believe the question makes sense.

I understand you don’t believe the question makes sense, you’ve said that enough times…

But I’ll just refer you to my earlier comment - unless you intend on never solving any equation involving implicit multiplication ever again, then you must ascribe to one way or the other of resolving it.

Again, that’s your fault-- you’ve clearly misinterpreted what I said.

Then tell me how I’ve misinterpreted what you said, because I stick by what I said as far as your example goes.

Your choice of example is not only a much more clear cut issue, being that most kids are taught by primary school (or the US equivalent) how and where to capitalise their letters, and to me it also demonstrates that you’ve not understood that the whole reason this debate is a thing is directly because there’s no “wrong way” of doing this.

If I didn’t think this conversation was worth having I wouldn’t be responding to you.

I understand you see this conversation with me as worth having, but I suspect this is more to do with wanting to resolve this conversation in your favour than it is to do with the underlying debate.