I would bet it could be more common with old rifles when they had worse quality metal.
I would bet it could be more common with old rifles when they had worse quality metal.
💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵🍆💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵💵
We’re literally the family with the drunk uncle who’s really fun at parties but now the alcoholism has caught up and he just gets sad and angry when he gets drunk.
For higher level maths you can easily make a final where googling the solution if you don’t know it will just slow you down.
Cancer says maybe
Cucumber is the best for thirst, yellow is the best for hangovers, orange is good sports drink. Dark blue can suck a dick and the rest are fine.
I will be returning mine (the steering wheel desk)
Lol
Wife wants coke, a brick of hash, bottle of pills, some meat and some sausage. Kid wants a sandwich and some ciggies.
Not to reiterate what other people have said here. But you can make an object 1 meter long by defining that object as 1 meter (hell, you don’t have to, but you can define 1 meter as the length that light travels in a specific amount of time or something silly). Then, to create something two meters long, you can have two of those one-meter lengths. To make something π meters long, you would need infinite precision, that is not true for 1 meter or even 1/3 as you mention later in this thread.
There is no way to divide anything into exactly π length. There is an easy way to divide something into a number that can be expressed as a fraction, such as 1/3, or any fraction you care to come up with, even if it can be represented as .3 repeating.
Oh I’m fine about communism I didn’t realize the founders were communist.
The headlines exist, but Stonehenge is what is generating the lasting discussion and will be the instance that most people in the world know about.
Sorry, I haven’t been on Lemmy as long. How did Communism send you here?
I mean, you only need 39 digits of pi to calculate the circumference of a circle with a diameter the size of the universe to the width of a hydrogen atom. So no matter how detailed you get it’s impossible to determine if a circles circumference is anywhere close to exactly pi.
To ops point, you could set up your thing theoretically and we can math out that it should be pi. But we could not make that object.
This is what people don’t understand about char gpt. It’s not a tool for accuracy, even the company who made it says that. Then idiots come in and say “see it does math wrong! And it can’t get a fact right! Only a moron would say this is the wave of the future!” And don’t get me wrong. Google added it into their search engine because of the hype and low and behold, the LLM was inaccurate.
What is chat gpt food for? Creativity and abstracting. An LLM model is really good when you need a list of 10 terrible names for a dog food company to get your brain thinking. It’s good at helping someone outline a story they want to write or make their email sound more professional. It’s useful as an aid to help someone plan a schedule. The best use of chatgpt is to work with it, not try to get it to do a task without you. An LLM works best with piecemeal feedback and someone knowledgeable in the subject that can vet the answers it’s giving.
On authority is used to justify the fact that many communist movements of the past turned into brutal dictatorships and that “it’s fine actually that mao starved half of China because you can’t have a revolution without being authoritarian”.
The actual paper is short and kind of stupid. What Engels was arguing in that short essay with a ridiculously outsized influence was that he was technically correct (the best kind) that anarchists are silly because any type of government someone could propose inevitably involves one person imposing their will on another like your quote says.
Really what Engels (who was a prominent communist thinker) was doing was fucking up any attempts at communist organization because now 1/3 of communists think that brutal authoritarianism is based and necessary for a revolution.
You’re definitely right that you picked apart their argument because ackshually there will always be a richest person. But clearly the sentiment is that someone shouldn’t get excessive wealth past their threshold.
How do we define excessive wealth and how do we limit it? Well there are lots and lots of proposals I would suggest reading up on some (you can Google that question to get 10 op eds that suggest 20 different solutions). I wouldn’t mind defining it as a certain percentage higher than the median wealth of the country. It would be funny to give Gabe Newell a “you won capitalism” trophy and taking excess wealth he gains.
As for motivation. It’s a much murkier subject than you imply. In an economy where the state takes every penny of a successful business’s wealth, yeah it makes sense that there’s no motivation to make a successful business. But if one could still get rich off of running a business (just not god-tier level wealth) I’m sure there would be plenty of motivation. And hell, if we give them prestige like we do now there’s tons of people who do what they do just for the fame with no profit. There’s tons of evidence that people aren’t purely motivated by the infinite profit of business people all over the world work their asses off in jobs they enjoy or respect that will never pay them Gabe Newell bucks.
That question is a walk you and Jesus have to take alone buddy.
Me remembering my wife telling me to get “just the essentials” at the grocery store eyeing up the ciggies, beer, and lottery tickets with our families last 20$ until payday in my pocket.