But that’s not really a Desktop is it? If we’d count mobile device we’d also have to include Android and then the situation would look completely different.

I think they did that in castles, because it’s generally pretty hard to build castles. If the enemy is inside the walls you are practically done anyway.

Sounds like an urban legend. Who do you mean anyway? James Couzens? Harry Bennett? Charles Sorensen? His son Edsel? They all died of natural causes.

According to their forum the extensions are back online in Russia: https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/the-censorship-circumvention-extension-has-disappeared-from-the-russian-version-of-mozilla-addons/130914/38

The extensions should be back online: https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/the-censorship-circumvention-extension-has-disappeared-from-the-russian-version-of-mozilla-addons/130914/38

It depends what you mean by useful. Most humans are (at least at the moment) more versatile than even the most advanced AI we have. But you have to keep in mind that there are jobs with pretty mundane tasks where you don’t really need the intelligence and versatility of a human.

True, but It’s still not what I meant unless they kill those humans. The employees that did that work before still need the 100W. It might be that they can now do something else (or just be unemployed) but the net energy usage is not going down.

The problem is that using those tools no matter how energy efficient will add to the total amount of energy humans use, because even if an AI generates an image faster than a human could, the human still needs 100W constantly.

This doesn’t mean, that we shouldn’t make it more efficient but let’s be honest, more energy efficient AI just means that we would use even more AI everywhere.

No shit Sherlock

There are a lot of YouTubers just playing with them, but I think Jim Browning is the only one actually taking them down.

Assassination Classroom (2015) ?

There is very likely some step to sit on 🤣. To empty the water you just need a hose and do the same trick people use to steal gasoline (or a pump if you want to be fast and fancy).

y2k38 will be even funnier than y2k and y3k I guess.

The joke is because of “degrees” (also to measure angles) and “radians”

Joules is unfortunately a vector because it’s over a distance in a direction.

What? Joule is an energy unit and energy is a scalar quantity and not a vector. There is no “energy direction” and no “distance”.

Edit: even your edit doesn’t make sense. Provide a source that says that energy or joule is somehow a vector.

Just saw the image you posted and it’s awesome :-) I’m part of the group that can’t solve it, because I don’t know the 🌭 function from the top of my head. I also found the choice of symbols interesting that 🌭 is analytical continuation of 🍔 and not the other way round 🤣

Chat GPT’s answer for me:

Certainly! The expression 6/2(1+2) is ambiguous due to the implicit multiplication. Let’s solve it in both ways:

1. Implicit multiplication with higher priority:

[ \frac{6}{2}(1+2) ]

First, solve the parentheses:

[ \frac{6}{2}(3) ]

Now, perform the division:

[ 3 \times 3 = 9 ]

2. Implicit multiplication with the same priority as division:

[ \frac{6}{2(1+2)} ]

Again, solve the parentheses:

[ \frac{6}{2(3)} ]

Now, perform the multiplication first:

[ \frac{6}{6} = 1 ]

So, depending on the interpretation of implicit multiplication, you can get different results: 9 or 1.

I think it’s funny that ChatGPT figured out 1 and 9 but has the steps completely backwards. First it points out what has high priority and then does the exact opposite, both times 🤣

Thank you for taking the time reading it.

Standards are as mentioned in the article often extra careful to prevent confusion and thus often stricter than widespread conventions with things they allow and don’t allow.

a/b*c is not ambiguous because no widespread convention would treat it any other way than (a/b)*c.

But you can certainly try to proof me wrong by showing me a calculator that would evaluate 6/2*3 to anything but 9.

So if there is not a single calculator out there that would come to a different result, how can it be ambiguous?

Update: Standards are rule-books for real projects to make it simpler to work together. It’s a bit like a Scrabble dictionary. If a word is missing in the official Scrabble dictionary, it doesn’t automatically mean that it’s not a real word, it just means that it wouldn’t be allowed to play that word in official Scrabble tournaments.

Same with (ISO) standards. Just because the standard forbids it doesn’t mean it’s not widespread or forbidden generally. It’s only forbidden in a context where all participants agreed to follow the standard.

Exactly a/b*c equals (a/b)*c but I’d instantly reconsider my position if you can show me a single calculator that would handle that diffently (credible calculator, not the once that some students program for homework assignments).

Even though one shouldn’t treat calculators as some kind of authority but if all calculators handle it that way (all calculators of the five major manufacturers, Google, MathCad, Mathematics, various open source CAS) it’s probably a very good indictator that it’s not ambiguous.

What I also mentioned in the article is that standards and guidelines are typically stricter than most conventions in the name of clarity. So some of them even forbid things like “a / b * c” even if practically everybody agrees how this should be interpreted, just to be “extra-safe”