Fun fact: C doesn’t even guarantee a + b == a + b

Furthermore, I’m not aware of any arguments worth taking seriously that don’t use logic, so I’m wondering why that’s a criticism of the notation.

If you hear someone shout at a mob “mathematics is witchcraft, therefore, get the pitchforks” I very much recommend taking that argument seriously no matter the logical veracity.

For a lorry, no. For a private vehicle, yes. Standard driving licenses only allow for up to 3.5t combined permissible weight (that is, vehicle and trailer plus maximum load), 750kg of those for trailer and load. If you want to drive a combination of vehicle and trailer individually up to 3.5t (so total 7t) you need a trailer license, anything above that you need a lorry license with all bells and whistles such as regular medical checkups.

Or, differently put: A standard VW Golf can pull almost thrice as much as most drivers are allowed to pull.

A small load for a private vehicle would be a small empty caravan, or a light trailer with some bikes. A Smart Fourtwo can pull 550kg which will definitely look silly but is otherwise perfectly reasonable, that’s enough for both applications.

Noone in the right state of mind uses decimals as a formalisation of numbers, or as a representation when doing arithmetic.

But the way I learned decimal division and multiplication in primary school actually supported periods. Spotting whether the thing will repeat forever can be done in finite time. Constant time, actually.

The deeper understanding of numbers where 0.999… = 1 is obvious needs a foundation of much more advanced math than just decimals

No. If you can accept that 1/3 is 0.333… then you can multiply both sides by three and accept that 1 is 0.99999… Primary school kids understand that. It’s a bit odd but a necessary consequence if you restrict your notation from supporting an arbitrary division to only divisions by ten. And that doesn’t make decimal notation worse than rational notation, or better, it makes it different, rational notation has its own issues like also not having unique forms (2/6 = 1/3) and comparisons (larger/smaller) not being obvious. Various arithmetic on them is also more complicated.

The real take-away is that depending on what you do, one is more convenient than the other. And that’s literally all that notation is judged by in maths: Is it convenient, or not.

Decimals require you to check the end of the number to see if you can round up, but there never will be an end.

The character sequence “0.999…” is finite and you know you can round up because you’ve got those three dots at the end. I agree that decimals are a shit representation to formalise rational numbers in but it’s not like using them causes infinite loops. Unless you insist on writing them, that is. You can compute with infinities just fine as long as you keep them symbolic.

That only breaks down with the reals where equality is fundamentally incomputable. Equality of the rationals and approximate equality of reals is perfectly computable though, the latter meaning that you can get equality to arbitrary, but not actually infinite, precision. You can specify a number of digits you want, you can say “don’t take longer than ten seconds to compute”, any kind of bound. Once the precision goes down to plank lengths I think any reasonable engineer would build a bridge with it.

…sometimes I do think that all those formalists with all those fancy rules about fancy limits are actually way more confused about infinity than freshman CS students.

But sir… How did I create an extra room? You didn’t.

When Hilbert runs the hotel, sure, ok. Once he sells the whole thing to an ultrafinitist however you suddenly notice that there’s a factory there and all the rooms are on rails and infinity means “we have a method to construct arbitrarily more rooms”, but they don’t exist before a guest arrives to occupy them.

The only thing this proves is that the fraction-to-decimal conversion is inaccurate.

No number is getting converted, it’s the same number in both cases but written in a different representation. 4 is also the same number as IV, no conversion going on it’s still the natural number elsewhere written S(S(S(S(Z)))). Also decimal representation isn’t inaccurate, it just happens to have multiple valid representations for the same number.

A number which is not 1 is not equal to 1.

Good then that 0.999… and 1 are not numbers, but representations.

Without computation there’s neither which is why CS always wins.

My kitchen scales have a USB-C port. While I certainly would like it to have the capability to stream GB/s worth of measuring data over it fact of the matter is I paid like ten bucks for it, all it knows is how to charge the CR2032 cell inside. I also don’t expect it to support displayport alt mode, it has a seven-segment display I don’t really think it’s suitable as a computer monitor.

What’s true though is that it’d be nice to have proper labelling standards for cables. It should stand to reason that the cable that came with the scales doesn’t support high performance modes, heck it doesn’t even have data lines literally the only thing it’s capable of is low-power charging, nothing wrong with that but it’d be nice to be able to tell that it can only do that at a semi-quick glance when fishing for a cable in the spaghetti bin.

A and B are the original, used for host and device sides, respectively. C is the same on both ends of the cable because figures there’s device classes which can sensibly act as both, in particular phones. It’s also the most modern of the bunch supporting higher data transfer and power delivery rates because back in the days where A and B where designed people were thinking about connecting mice and keyboards, not 8k monitors or kWhs worth of lithium batteries.

The whole mini/micro shennanigans are alternative B types and quite deeply flawed, mechanically speaking.

Forget specifics just test for psychological patterns supporting pauschalisierende Ablehnungskonstruktionen. Which run counter to human dignity anyway so in principle, no change in law is needed.

…it also has fuckall to do with states, though. States don’t have human rights.

Forks are derivative works (quite obviously) so yes you can forbid them via license terms. Whether or not that’s still open source, take it up with OSI. I vaguely recall that at least once upon a time there was some project that required modification to the code to be published as separate patches and it was generally accepted to be open source don’t ask me which.

Somehow I have the feeling that this is not going to convince people who think that 0.9999… /= 1, but only make them madder.

Personally I like to point to the difference, or rather non-difference, between 0.333… and ⅓, then ask them what multiplying each by 3 is.

A single study will not tell you everything about everything. No, ruminants will not just magically appear in the landscape, we’re living in a causal universe, after all.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that all ruminants indeed all grazers (also deer, giraffes, whatever) are extinct. Plants will flourish, not being eaten by them, then individual plants, or parts of them (falling leaves etc) will die as part of their normal life/reproduction cycle – and get eaten by fungi, bacteria, etc. Which will burp CO2 and probably other greenhouse gases.

The condition for nature to produce CO2 are simple: The presence of carbon in a form that can be oxidised, such as sugar and starches of which plants produce plenty, the presence of oxygen, and a critter, any critter, that can do it. Even if it’s just a single species, it’s going to eat the whole thing and release all the carbon back into the atmosphere. Consuming available energy to reproduce itself is literally what life is all about.

If there’s energy around that can be used, nature will use it. Have a look at the most biodiverse and productive ecosystem in the world, the Amazon rain forest: It has very poor soil because as soon as something dies, its remains are recycled by something else. Destroying the Amazon rain forest releases CO2, again planting stuff there re-captures it, but reconstituted forest doesn’t continue to sequester carbon indefinitely: Only until it has accumulated the amount of carbon that it needs to sustain itself, after that it’s going to be carbon-neutral.

You may be asking “but then how did all that oil and coal end up in the soil”: Highly specific circumstances: Plants were producing stuff that critters couldn’t eat. But we’re currently not in that situation and in fact critters seem to be ludicrously efficient at evolving to break up new compounds. PET was first synthesised 1941, in 2016 scientists found critters which can eat it – producing CO2 in the process, of course. That’s exactly what’s going to happen to all that herbivore-free land you envision. If we want to sequester carbon, care has to be taken that nature won’t dig it up again.

anyone can host an email service

Eh, no. You could in the 2000s, nowadays spam protection is so tight, and necessarily that tight, that you need at least a full-time position actively managing the server or you’re getting blacklisted for some reason or the other. Other servers will simply not accept emails sent by you if you don’t look legit and professional.

Definitely possible for a company with IT department, as a small company you want to outsource it (emails being on your domain doesn’t mean you’re managing the server), as a hobbyist, well you might be really into it but generally also no. Send protonmail or posteo or whoever a buck or something a month.

There’s a reason pretty much no culture or religion bans consumption of goats or sheep; they are critical.

Not the baseline poor people staple over here either, though, that’d be chickens, as well as one or two pigs, as scrap eaters: One to sell, one to turn into bacon by hanging it into the chimney. Sheep have a crucial role but as lawn mowers and soil compactors on dikes, also wool in the past but nowadays (non-merino) wool is basically worthless, as in often not even recouping the costs of shearing. The meat is certainly eaten but as said it’s neither a staple, or crucial ingredient of some classic dish. Eating game is more common. Heck horse overall might be more common. Goats really aren’t a thing at all.

Factory farms have hundreds of cows per hectare.

Surrounded by vast supporting fields which have none. Please, try to get a whole-picture view of anything before you post, don’t accost me with over-reductive narrow-focus BS, this is almost “The US has more people per capita” type of comical. Also, don’t just knee-jerk dismiss a link to a paper in Nature, of all journals.

So if the total population of cows would go down to 0-1% of todays farmed amount, that would reduce the GHG emission impact down to a negligible amount.

No. And if you read the paper, you’d understand why.

You are inventing a problem that doesn’t exist to justify the continuation of factory farming.

I’m opposed to factory farming. For other reasons. Biodiversity, for one.

sigh

citation. Things differ a bit depending on exactly what kind of environment you’re looking at but that’s still the rough ballpark. Yes, non-pasture farming looks different – but the area used to grow soy now would still sequester carbon, and it’d still be released back into the atmosphere by animals that eat it. Forests etc. aren’t bottomless CO2 sinks.

The intensity of dairy and beef farming is magnitudes beyond what any natural population of cattle would look like.

I don’t think you have a proper picture of what a natural ruminant population looks like. To give you a proper sense, Imagine a galloping Bison herd stretching, in a not exactly thin line, from horizon to horizon.

There’s green stuff to be eaten. As long as that’s there, the population of animals eating green stuff increases. Simple as that. It’s part of the natural CO2 cycle, to go ahead and say “let’s ‘fix’ the natural CO2 cycle so we don’t have to fix the man-made one” is ecologically naive.

EDIT: source. You may not like it but I’m not pulling this out of my ass.

Also wild ruminants cause similar, almost identical, CO2 emissions compared to pasture cattle. And if you’re re-wilding all those areas wild ruminants will be exactly who’s going to live on there, burping all that carbon plants sequestered right back up into the atmosphere.

There’s plenty of levers to pull when it comes to climate change, this isn’t one of it. On the contrary, it’s likely to be better to continue managing those ruminants because then we can feed them stuff that makes them burp straight CO2 instead of methane.

The actually big topics are transportation and heating, both should be (almost) completely electrified and electricity production switched to renewables (or nuclear, don’t wanna fight with you guys right now you’re free to pay more for your electricity if you want), and then further on industrial processes. Not doing things like waste heat capture nowadays is plain silly (though we need better district heating infrastructure to enable full penetration), chemical feedstock and things like steel smelting will require a proper supply of green hydrogen. “Muh there won’t be hydrogen cars” I don’t care. We still need the infrastructure.

That’s the sort of thing that should just be an extension

It most likely is on the technical level, just shipped by default and integrated into standard settings instead of the add-on ones. And it’s going to be opt-in, so you won’t have to go into about:config to disable it. Speaking of: You’re looking for extensions.pocket.enabled, it should be false. And before you say “muh diskspace” it’s probably like 5k of js and css or such.