Someone else covered it in another reply, but moles have bald areas. Hairy Ball only applies when it’s entirely covered.

Edit: other comment

I did not need to know that, but I respect the witty way you communicated it

Fair, but also, you could look up XKCD comics by their name or transcript and link to them directly when you come across them.

I think if your organs are all tarred up, you have a problem

Homotopic: Having the same (homo-) topological properties (-topic)

I’m in the process of starting a fight with my neighbours. They complained (indirectly) about our garden being unkempt. I asked them for an appointment to talk directly so we can figure out just what the problem is. I’m not doing shit until they can tell me just what part of my little piece of nature is breaking any laws.

Tthat’s not south of Antarctica though. It’s below, in terms of the map’s perspective, but “absolute south” is the middle of the picture. Anywhere outside Antarctica is north of Antarctica.

Only for bipedals. Quadrupedal animals can well keep a leg on the ground at all times even when moving at speed. To borrow from another comment here: Would you call a stampeding elephant “walking”?

Adding on to the other comment, Nobara is maintained by Glorious Egroll, the same guy that also develops the popular Proton-GE compatibility tool which adds some extra fixes on top of Valve’s Proton.

(Proton is the compatibility tool Steam uses to make Windows games run on Linux, in case you’re unfamiliar)

I think that’s where the world of art appreciation is now quite visibly breaking along a divide that has existed for a while. Some have always just valued the product: means be damned, if the end is enjoyable enough. For others, the process matters; for some even more than the result.

The latter group seems larger, though they may just be more passionate about their views and accordingly vocal (personally, I suspect both are the case, but I don’t know of any solid evidence).

Such is the way of new technology: it challenges traditional values. That doesn’t mean those values are without merit or have to be overturned, but I think it’s valuable that they’re challenged at least.

Here’s to hoping they stand the test.

That’s war. That has been the nature of war and deterrence policy ever since industrial manufacture has escalated both the scale of deployments and the cost and destructive power of weaponry. Make it too expensive for the other side to continue fighting (or, in the case of deterrence, to even attack in the first place). If the payoff for scraping no longer justifies the investment of power and processing time, maybe the smaller ones will give up and leave you in peace.

We used to pretend this was a solution and now the pretend solution is being taken away

…to be replaced by an actual solution, right?

Right?

When referencing another person’s comment, it can be helpful to link to that comment or the article you mentioned.

I’d also like to point out that many Wikipedia articles, particularly those written by experts on a given scientific subject, tend to be daunting rather than helpful for people not yet familiar with that subject.

Explanations like the one you offered in this comment and the next reply can help make topics more approachable, so I very much appreciate that.

To illustrate my point:

In this case, the article first describes the principle as “pertaining to a lower theoretical limit of energy consumption of computation”, which doesn’t directly highlight the connection to information storage. The next sentence then mentions “irreversible change in information” and “merging two computational paths”, both of which are non-trivial.

From a brief glance at the article on reversible computing linked further on, I gather that “irreversible” here doesn’t mean “you can’t flip the bit again” but rather something like “you can’t deterministically figure out the previous calculation from its result”, so the phrase boils down to “storing a piece of information” for our context. The example of “merging computational paths” probably has no particular bearing on the energy value of information either and can be ignored as well.

Figuring out the resulting logic that you so kindly laid out – again, thank you for that! – requires a degree of subject-specific understanding to know what parts of the explanation can be safely ignored.

Of course, experts want to be accurate and tend to think in terms they’re familiar with, so I don’t fault them for that. The unfortunate result is that their writings are often rather intransparent to laypeople and linking to Wikipedia articles isn’t always the best way to convey an understanding.

Maybe the targeted advertising got your location wrong?

I mean, this is the Catholic Church we’re talking about. They’re not particularly known for fair hiring policies.

Shouldn’t that be exothermic oxidation?

I find that hard to beelieve

I’m autistic, which results in me deconstructing and analysing jokes instead of laughing (often to the displeasure of the people who think I didn’t find their joke funny – I promise, if I’m taking the time to disassemble your joke that means I found it funny and want to understand why).

The flipside is that I occasionally crack out carefully engineered bangers, because I understand the importance of a setup, building expectations and putting the brain on one track of thought, then capping it off with the “derailing” of those expectations. The shorter you can get it, the less time the brain has to get off track on its own, diminishing that derailing effect.

Of course, getting the inspiration and figuring out a way to put that into practice is it’s own unpredictable beast, and some jokes just fall flat despite my effort. Sometimes I misread the room or the audience too. I’m not a particularly talented comedian.

But at least I’m not a setup without a punchline.

A particularly nasty version of absurdism, more like. If nothing matters in the grand scheme, might as well go and make the best of your life. Except most people can still acknowledge that empathy does matter for your life at least, while he doesn’t give a shit.

A definitional concession to make exponential series work. xⁿ for n ∈ (0, 1) is the nth root of x, which gets ever closer to 1, while x^n for n < 0 equals 1÷ (xⁿ). Between them lies the neutral element with respect to multiplication 1 (neutral meaning that x × 1 = x; a factor of one doesn’t actually change anything). Hence, x⁰ = 1.

That rule breaks down for x = 0, obviously. Negative exponents don’t work at all because they’re division by zero, while all exponents > 0 result in 0. Semantically, 0⁰ probably should be undefined, but the neutral element rule does provide a definition. There also isn’t really any reasonable use case where you’d need that to be consistent with anything else.