iglou @ iglou @programming.dev

Posts

0

Comments

43

Joined

2 mo. ago

"If you disagree, you're just unable to cope with reality"

Opinion discarded automatically!

Gen Z is already named "Zoomers", but it's not sticking as much as "Gen Z".

Millenials are also called Gen Y. Millenials just happens to have sticked more. And Gen Z is also called Zoomers.

That's the fucked up thing about HOAs. Their rules are legally enforceable, as long as the rules themselves are legal to impose. Just like any other contract. It's a fucked up system.

This onion has way too many layers. I'm lost.

Plenty of countries where 35-40h/week, or even less, is the norm (and I mean it as no "not counted" extra hours)

No it isn't.

Yes, it is.

No it isn't. The Quotient is defined as the number obtained when you divide the Dividend by the Divisor. Here it is straight out of Euler...

I'm defining the division operation, not the quotient. Yes, the quotient is obtained by dividing... Now define dividing.

Emphasis on "alternative", not actual.

The actual is the one I gave. I did not give the alternative definitions. That's why I said they are also defined based on a multiplication, implying the non-alternative one (understand, the actual one) was the one I gave.

Feel free to send your entire Euler document rather than screenshotting the one part you thought makes you right.

Note, by the way, that Euler isn't the only mathematician who contributed to the modern definitions in algebra and arithmetics.

Yes, it is. The division of a by b in the set of real numbers and the set of rational numbers (which are, de facto, the default sets used in most professions) is defined as the multiplication of a by the multiplicative inverse of b. Alternative definitions are also based on a multiplication.

That's why divisions are called an auxilliary operation.

Extremely sensitive towards different ethnic groups? You mean, only the ones they care about? Cause the Uyghurs, amongst other ethnic groups, have something to say to that

I'm not saying they have no good ideas, and they do have good social policies... But let's not forget that they also repress like hell, using military force if necessary, only allow one party: their own, control the media, jail political opponents (funny, that's what you were complaining about earlier) and journalists... Guess what, all of this is a bunch of fascist traits.

Fascism doesn't forbid to inplement policies that are good for the population.

And well, yeah, we're discussing concepts that protect democracy, so I'm expecting you to show examples of democracies. Democracy implies... voting, yeah.

You're clearly not here in good faith, so I'll leave you to your propaganda! Cheers! Hope you manage to move to China someday.

A fascist usually rises to the head of the executive or the military, not the legislative.

Then again, it is not only the separation of powers that prevent fascism, but it definitely has helped slow down and stop the rise of fascism, especially in the 30s. Didn't always work, obviously, but it is certainly better than no separation at all (I'm still waiting for you to answer my question, by the way: How would no separation of power be more effective?).

And no, I'm not about to waste my time giving you a history lesson about how the separation of powers helps fight fascism. And I'll remind you that it is a commonly accepted fact, and that if you wish to claim otherwise, the burden of proof is on you.

China? Really? Yes, they have a fascist problem as they fit a lot of the traits that define fascism, and no, they have no separation of power. Is that what this is about? You'd like to see the CCP model all over the world?

Because the alternative has already been tested thoroughly throughout history?

Because the alternative makes it that much easier for an aspiring fascist to take full control of every branch of power?

In what world do you think that not separating powers can have a more democratic outcome?

...Then it's also shittily implemented in Spain. Separation of powers doesn't mean you can't have a better system than nomination in the adjudicative branch, and it doesn't mean you can't have assholes at the head of branches. It means you don't grant all branches of power to the same assholes. Which would be worse in any case.

Bottom line: It's a great and essential principle to maintain democratic institutions, but of course not enough by itself.

No, it's great. It's just shittily implemented in the US.

No, the microplastics were found in the content of the bottles. The cap thing is where they come from. As a reply to you explained, the microplastic from the top of a cap is scratched by another cap and ends up on the bottom of yet another cap.

Most people who run from their country are all but financially stable.

Your "low" standard of living is not low at all for most countries. So, yes, lowering that standard is necessary if you want to leave.

We haven't studied rhe same History.

There is no general hard line, as everyone's hard line differs. Rather than a hard line, the point of no return is likely defined by how many people consider their hard line crossed, and how many act on it.

You underestimate the strength of the 3rd Reich. It was something.

No country on Earth can hold its own if the rest of the world bands against it. If the US go ballistic, they'll fall.

I'm more scared of whoever is in charge then taking the whole world with them using the big red button.

Election interference? Nah, it's endorsement

Corruption? Nah, it's lobbyism

As a French, I'll never understand how this shit is legal in the USA. We've sued presidents for much less than that.