The "color" of a thing is pure perception and often just a genuine personal choice.
It is annoying to think about it like that, but consider:
A movie projected onto a white canvas. Before the movie starts, there is no light projecting onto it and it's just the white canvas.
The movie opening credit comes on. "ALIEN" it says in thin white letters on black background. The projector does not darken the canvas, just add some lines of light forming letters in the middle. Yet we see black.
Is the canvas black or white now? If do when did it change? Is it both? How would you describe that?
People give many answers to this. Most of them based on choice of definition more than objective observation, which I find super interesting.
Their bullshit causes a risk that someone else hesitate or pass on vaccination. You did an attempt at convincing. The responsible alternative is to make them feel uncomfortable bringing up the subject.
He is such an absurd historical figure to read about, the way he could get people to rally around him and make his armies work smoothly no matter what.
It looked like he could just wash ashore naked and alone anywhere, recruit a loyal army from whomever appeared to live nearby, and snowball it into a huge professional fighting force on the way to conquer the nearest city.
Your question is already answered correctly, so I'm just chiming in with thoughts on a similar situation :)
If you weigh both dice, it gets interesting again.
The obvious is to make one die roll always 3 and the other always 4, and get 1/1 chance of 7 but that's boring and you'll only get a few throws in before you're obviously cheating.
Dice are arranged so that opposite sides always add up to 7, meaning you can get 1,2,3 around one corner and 4,5,6 around the opposite corner. So if you weigh opposite corners on each die, you get a 1/3 chance of rolling a 7 by varying combinatons. You might get away with a few more rolls like that.
This is what I have been hoping LLMs would provoke since the beginning.
Testing understanding via asking students to parrot textbooks with changed wording was always a shitty method, and one that de-incentivizes deep learning:
It allows for teachers that do not understand their field beyond a superficial level to teach, and to evaluate. What happens when a student given the test question "Give an intuitive description of an orbit in your own words" answers by describing orbital mechanics in a relative frame instead of a global frame, when the textbook only mentions global frame? They demonstrate understanding beyond the material which is excellent but all they do is risk being marked down by a teacher who can't see the connection.
A student who only memorized the words and has the ability to rearrange them a bit, gets full marks no risk.
This comment is uninformed and I appreciate any corrections or education:
I thought Iran already had nukes, so the attack made no sense: Attacks on nuclear weapons facilities are prettly much "launch nukes" in any nuclear doctrine in any nuclear country.
But apparently they have just been working on them, and are allegedly a few weeks off from making their first?
It still seems like a suicidal move. Attacks on production typically slows or delays, but won't delete or reverse anything. Iran hurrying up the programme and going on full nuke alert ready to fire if a bird in the sky twitches wrong seems like a very possible outcome.
No idea what you based those claims on, but the spec itself (I have the pdf) and Wikipedia's summary disagree. ISO8601 allows for YYY-MM-DD yes but it allows for a bunch of silly stuff.
It's also such an broken idea that I can only imagine it comes from american tech bros who have a childish view of the world.
"Yes this area is germany people in germany speak german so websites must german problem solved"
No:
I am Norwegian. I sometimes gasp TRAVEL. Taking a train through Germany to get to France doesn't mean I want Google to go all "Dieses Suchenwiegenflassen gewürst fleinmescht bitte" at me when I search for pictures of cute cats.
Some countries have multiple official languages.
Some people technically in Norway living close to the border just speak swedish.
Expats.
I don't want badly translated websites in Norwegian. Just give me English. Microsoft Bing for years had a setting that when translated back to English said "Number of results: Car".
The "color" of a thing is pure perception and often just a genuine personal choice.
It is annoying to think about it like that, but consider:
A movie projected onto a white canvas. Before the movie starts, there is no light projecting onto it and it's just the white canvas.
The movie opening credit comes on. "ALIEN" it says in thin white letters on black background. The projector does not darken the canvas, just add some lines of light forming letters in the middle. Yet we see black.
Is the canvas black or white now? If do when did it change? Is it both? How would you describe that?
People give many answers to this. Most of them based on choice of definition more than objective observation, which I find super interesting.