My thought exactly. Their definition of privacy is… interesting

Luckily, they don’t own any of Wikipedia’s content, and it’s all downloadable at anytime by anyone wanting to create a mirror.

I’m having a really hard time donating to wikipedia now that I’ve learned they are actually doing pretty well and don’t need donations as urgently as their invasive banners say.

Now, of course their main revenue stream is donations (not only, I don’t have the numbers but they sell commercial access to big tech through a for-profit company, Wikimedia Enterprise). But the whole guilt tripping strategy they’ve been using for a decade without actually needing it is disgusting.

I strongly recommend watching this 10min, sourced video on the topic from fern.

I’d rather donate to non profits that actually need it and yet don’t resort to these emotionally manipulating campaigns.

It’s very, very, very likely to take into accounts a bunch of data bought from all the wonderful companies that track all your habits, especially purchasing habits.

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.

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.

I’m just confused as to how that is not common knowledge. The country I speak of is France, and we’re not exactly known for our excellent maths education.

No, it should simply be “Parenthesis, exponents, multiplication, addition.”

A division is defined as a multiplication, and a substraction is defined as an addition.

I am so confused everytime I see people arguing about this, as this is basic real number arithmetics that every kid in my country learns at 12 yo, when moving on from the simplified version you learn in elementary school.

Oh yes, I am so threatened. You got me.

Afraid of what? Replying to what point? Your “shower thought” (lmao) is just a messy thought process of which every single step is based on nothing.

Why would we waste energy discussing consequences of events that will never happen?

Not at all. There is many ways to rationalize time, nothing is settled at all. The “settled theory” you talk about would create paradoxes, if time travel is ever made real. And paradoxes don’t work well with reality.

There is actually a fairly common way to rationalize time that is the opposite of what you’re describing: Time is entirely a construct, there is no past, no future, only the present. Take away all of humanity’s memories and the past doesn’t exist at all.

There’s also an understanding of time that says it only goes forward, making time travelling to the past impossible.

It’s not like we actually know how time travel would work. Because, you know, it’s not currently a thing at all.

The inner app

Except that he made Jarvis. Meaning he understands perfectly his tool’s abilities and limitations… Which vibe coders don’t.

That 96% of the population isn’t currently in a state so shitty they’d revolt. We’re talking about a dystopian future where there is barely any work to do, yet no UBI or equivalent system. A future where the rich have everything and keep everything. People born in these conditions won’t be too lazy for a revolution.

Then they will someday wake up with a shock, because no amount of tech will stop 99% of the population from winning a revolution. That only happens in movies.

Plus, many countries would riot far before it gets to this point. We frenchies protested for years “just” because of our retirement being pushed a few years…

yet none of the currently available tools seem to be anywhere near capable of it.

Exactly. It’s not even capable of properly doing web development, imagine trying to use it to target environment requiring absolute optimisation… Or even just video games.