Kogasa

Stokes’ theorem. Almost the same thing as the high school one. It generalizes the fundamental theorem of calculus to arbitrary smooth manifolds. In the case that M is the interval [a, x] and ω is the differential 1-form f(t)dt on M, one has dω = f’(t)dt and ∂M is the oriented tuple {+x, -a}. Integrating f(t)dt over a finite set of oriented points is the same as evaluating at each point and summing, with negatively-oriented points getting a negative sign. Then Stokes’ theorem as written says that f(x) - f(a) = integral from a to x of f’(t) dt.

Reminds me of 2048 making a slightly worse clone of Threes and then releasing it for free.

Mesa is usually pretty quick to update, it’s just that stable distros won’t update mesa all that quickly. I assume most of them have some way to install a newer mesa from a community repo or something.

Monkey laundering.

What platforms would you like your app to run on? Then, which UI framework supporting those platforms would you like to use? Then, look at the framework’s documentation to find a sample starter project that you can run as an app, and modify it from there

What’s wrong with mssql besides licensing? It’s fast

C# tells you the call site/method name and line number right at the top. It’s only really annoying when you have aggregate exceptions, which sometimes occur because someone async’d wrong

Java good

You are unhinged

You are off your meds

The distributive law has nothing to do with brackets.

The distributive law can be written in PEMDAS as a(b+c) = ab + ac, or PEASMD as ab+c = (ab)+(ac). It has no relation to the notation in which it is expressed, and brackets are purely notational.

Of course. If you’re working in a DSL that’s popular enough for someone to have written a good schema/parser for then tooling can help.

Not that YAML’s structure is too complicated, but its syntax is too flexible. All the shit about being whitespace sensitive yet with whitespace errors leading to a syntactically valid YAML document. TOML’s syntax is rigid which makes it unsuitable for expressing complex nested data structures, which is good because that’s not what you should use TOML for. Ultimately the dependence on a highly flexible baseline language like YAML to create complex DSLs is a failure on the developers’ part, and the entire configuration system should be reworked.

The order of operations is not the same as the distributive law.

Yaml Ain’t Markup Language: am i a joke to you

(JSON for data, TOML for configuration)

The desktop solution isn’t feasible in the mobile context. Even for desktops, you see an increased interest in reproducible/containerized/sandboxed environments with docker, flatpak/snap, immutable operating systems, and so on. It’s all about managing complexity.

Sandboxing is a good thing. It makes it a lot easier and safer for billions of devices to run millions of apps.

And that simple model, well-defined model didn’t properly account for juxtaposition, which is how different fields have ended up with two different ways of interpreting it, i.e. strong vs. weak juxtaposition.

No, that’s just not what happened. “Strong juxtaposition,” while well-defined, is a post-hoc rationalization. Meaning in particular that people who believe that this expression is best interpreted with “strong juxtaposition” don’t really believe in “strong juxtaposition” as a rule. What they really believe is that communication is subtle and context dependent, and the traditional order of operations is not comprehensive enough to describe how people really communicate. And that’s correct.

Considering your degree specialisation is in solving arithmetic problems

My degree specialization is in algebraic topology.

I don’t see the issue with them asking you to put your money where your mouth is and spit out a number if it’s so easy

The issue is that this question disregards and undermines my point and asks me to pick a side, arbitrarily, that (as I’ve already explained) I don’t actually believe in.

Ironic that you tell me to check my reading comprehension right after you misquote me, but nonetheless that is the impression your responses have given off - and you haven’t done anything so far to dispel that impression.

I didn’t misread, you’re in denial.

Yes, and the question everyone is asking you is what is that unambiguous way? Which side of weak or strong juxtaposition do you come out on?

Hopefully by this point in the comment you understand that I don’t believe the question makes sense.

The value judgement was actually more to do with your choice of example, and how you applied that example to this debate. It gave me the distinct impression that you view this debate as not worth having, as anybody who does juxtaposition differently from you is wrong out the gate - and again, your further responses only reinforce my impression of you.

Again, that’s your fault-- you’ve clearly misinterpreted what I said. If I didn’t think this conversation was worth having I wouldn’t be responding to you.

“Which ruleset do you consider correct” presupposes, as the comment said, that there are 2 rulesets. There aren’t. There’s the standard, well known, and simplified model which is taught to kids, and there’s the real world, where adults communicate by using context and shared understanding. Picking a side here makes no sense.

Hi, expert here, calculators have nothing to do with it. There’s an agreed upon “Order of Operations” that we teach to kids, and there’s a mutual agreement that it’s only approximately correct. Calculators have to pick an explicit parsing algorithm, humans don’t have to and so they don’t. I don’t look to a dictionary to tell me what I mean when I speak to another human.