hallettj

If I’m doing more than one cracking two together is best. For the last one, countertop.

I get the flat, inside-the-sink idea. But I’d want to clean either way, and I clean the counters more often than I clean the sides of the sink.

I did not realize nano implemented syntax highlighting!

Oh this is just the thing for playing bard, and casting “vicious mockery” several times per combat

The justification for invading Iraq was a claim that they were developing nuclear weapons. It was well known at the time that the evidence was flimsy, and that even if true it was a flimsy excuse for an invasion. The main piece of evidence was an intercepted shipment of aluminum tubes that were soon shown to have nothing to do with a nuclear program. (See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_aluminum_tubes). That one is not a conspiracy theory.

This is exactly why we have Reversed Polish Notation. When will people learn?

Oh goddammit! Why doesn’t PEMDAS prepare us for unary negation??

The problem is that the way PEMDAS is usually taught multiplication and division are supposed to have equal precedence. The acronym makes it look like multiplication comes before division, but you’re supposed to read MD and as one step. (The same goes for addition and subtraction so AS is also supposed to be one step.) It this example the division is left of the multiplication so because they have equal precedence (according to PEMDAS) the division applies first.

IMO it’s bad acronym design. It would be easier if multiplication did come before division because that is how everyone intuitively reads the acronym.

Maybe it should be PE(M/D)(A/S). But that version is tricky to pronounce. Or maybe there shouldn’t be an acronym at all.

The parentheses step only covers expressions inside parentheses. That’s 2 + 2 in this case. The times-2 part is outside the parentheses so it’s evaluated in a different step.

The comment from subignition explains that the phone’s answer, 16, is what you get by strictly following PEMDAS: the rule is that multiplication and division have the same precedence, and you evaluate them from left-to-right.

The calculator uses a different convention where either multiplication has higher priority than division, or where “implicit” multiplication has higher priority (where there is no multiply sign between adjacent expressions).

Radium produces the most radiation by miles. The plutonium gives off some alpha radiation that won’t hurt you if you don’t eat it. (Eye protection would be a good idea I suppose.) I don’t remember what U-235 emits but I don’t think it’s a huge amount.

And also asking, how does it compare to a high-yield savings account?

Wow, this is one of the most complicated Snopes analyses I’ve seen. But it seems like the statement is accurate with caveats. If the brightest component of Polaris is probably 50 million years old what was there before wasn’t really Polaris. And then it doesn’t make a difference whether sharks have been around for 450 million or 195 million years.

This is an interesting idea! When I was learning Nix, and feeling frustrated, I often thought that a type-checked language would help with discoverability. But it seems like it might be difficult to combine strong type-checking with Nix expressions’ use of lazy self-reference. So with Garn you get the type-checking, but lose the laziness. I’m interested to see how that goes.

I’m finding this mess interesting: the MAGAs vote and debate like a third party, which kinda gives us a House with no majority party which is something we usually don’t get to see in America. And we’re getting the deadlocks that come from a chamber that isn’t willing to form a coalition - or at least not a reliable one.

I just hope the next speaker candidate doesn’t try for the same Republican-MAGA coalition. Although I’m prepared to be disappointed. Do you think there’s any chance a Republican would offer to sideline the MAGAs to get support from Democrats?

Under this analysis the Democrats have a plurality. How does that tend to work out in governments with more than two parties?

I have a recurring task called “rotate butter” scheduled once a month which seems about right to me.

I totally agree.

Right now I’m on a new project with a teammate who likes to rebase PR branches, and merge with merge commits to “record a clean history of development”. It’s not quite compatible with the atomic-change philosophy of conventional commits. I’m thinking about making a case to change style, but I’ve already failed to argue the problem of disruption when rebasing PR branches.

Lol this is what I was thinking too. The junior dev is also a black box. AI automation seems more like delegating than programming to me.

I get fatigued too! At the end of an especially busy day of coding I have trouble forming sentences for a bit until I take some time to rest. Programming is complicated, and all that mental work literally uses up calories, and fatigues brain cells. Have you heard of the waterfall illusion? The short version is if you watch stuff moving down for a while your downward-motion-detecting cells get tired, and become less active which which messes with your ability to perceive not-moving-upward things for a minute. Your other brain cells get tired too - but it doesn’t take long to recover if you take a break.