37c3 ist der kurzname des 37. Chaos Communication Congress, eine (+- corona) jährliche Veranstaltung des Chaos Computer Clubs
rasensprenger
joined 2 years ago
Once you have the idea, seeing that it works if often easy. But coming up with ideas like that can be really hard, which is why gauss was the only one in his class who got it. There is no general method, you just have to think about stuff for a while, but you can get better with practice. And it feels really good when you prove something for yourself, even if it's relatively straightforward. You can just try to prove some simple things yourself, if you want, the advanced college courses are just for proving really advanced stuff.
I can get a 10TB HDD for under 250€, and there are some technical advantages. For example, if you have an ssd lying around unpowered, it will lose data much quicker than magnetic storage
Antiantifa -> fa
This may be a stupid question but is your video cable plugged into the gpu or into the motherboard?
*Geschichtenerzählen
Pemdas puts division and multiplication on the same level, so 34/22 is 12 not 3. Implicit multiplication is also multiplication. It's a question of convention, but by default, it's 16.
Buuuh (<3)
It's weird because usually the people writing the expressions want to communicate clearly, and stuff like 1/2x is not immediately clear to everyone, so they write the 1/2 as a fraction.
The same expression on both sides of the division sign only reduce to one if they actually bind to the division sign, which is rarely an issue, but that is exactly the thing that is in question here. I think it's clear that 1 + 1/1 + 1 is 3, not 1, even though 1+1 = 1+1.
But as you said, of course, the evaluation order is just convention, you can just as well write everything in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_Polish_notation
your first line is correct, but while it looks like 1 (and it might be under different conventions), evaluating according to standard rules (left to right if not disambiguated by pemdas) yields
2(2+2)/2(2+2) = 2(4)/2(4) = 2*4/2*4 = 8/2*4 = 4*4 = 16
Using implicit multiplication in quotients is weird and really shouldn't happen, this would usually be written as 8/(2*(2+2)) or 8/2*(2+2) and both are much clearer
Your second argument only works if you treat 2(2+2) as a single "thing", which it looks like, but isn't, in this case
Because "weekly" is kind of a fraction (1/week), and 2/week and 1/(2week) are very different, but both can be pronounced very similarly. Read kind of like (2-week)ly and 2-(weekly). Which is why both meanings are used, so you need to use context to disambiguate, or just guess if context isn't available.
This is also the reason why in this thread people say "semiweekly" is the other option, but they don't all use the same other option. You have the same, but inverse problem there.