Zuck can't be too excited to be suddenly and harshly cut out of the Oval Office Data Pipeline...

Just drink some Popov grade Trump Vodka at one of his many totally not bankrupt casinos to take your mind off of it.

That's very fair. Better start contributing I guess.

Oh, Google... Just eviler and eviler every day. Not only robbing creators of any monetization via clicking on links but now just blatantly stealing their content for an even more efficient theft model. FFS. I can't fucking wait to complete my de-googling project and get you the absolute fuck completely out of my life. I've developed a hatred for Google that actually rivals my hatred for Apple. ‍️

A fairer comparison would be Eliza vs ChatGPT.

Welcome to the 21st century Welcome to it's not a textbook (and it wasn't about order of operations anyway). We have this thing called the internet so people can share information without killing trees We also have this thing called textbooks, that schools order so that Maths classes don't have to be held in computer labs. It’s the resource material for a college course And the college doesn't teach order of operations. That’s like the definition of a text book by someone who can't back up their statements with actual textbooks. One is a PhD teaching a college course on the subject Yep, exactly what I said - a random person as far as order of operations is concerned, since he teaches Set Theory and not order of operations. the other is Wolfram Yeah, their programmers didn't know The Distributive Law either. I’m willing to bet their credentials beat “claims to be a high school math teacher” pretty soundly Happy to take that bet. Guarantee you neither of them has studied order of operations since they were in high school. This portion of the discussion wasn’t about order of operations Yes it is. I said that order of operations dictates that you have to solve binary operators before unary operators, then you started trying to argue about unary operators. it was about the number of inputs an operator (+, and - in this case) has Yep, the ones with more inputs, binary operators, have to be solved first. Try to keep up Says person who's forgotten why we were talking about it to begin with! At least your repeated use of the plural maths means you’re not anywhere near my kids. Well that outs yourself as living in a country which has fallen behind the rest of the world in Maths, where high school teachers don't even have to have Maths qualifications to teach Maths. when those symbols are being used as a “sign of the quality” of the number it’s referring to which is always. As usual, the comprehension issue is at your end. not when it’s being used to indicate an operation like addition or subtraction Yes it is Hopefully that clears it up That you still have comprehension issues? I knew that already This is ignoring the fact that a random screen shot could be anything The name of the book is in the top left. Not very observant either. For all I know you wrote that yourself You don't care how much you embarrass yourself do you, given the name of the book is in the top left and anyone can find and download it. because the first “+” isn’t an operator Yes it is! It’s, as your own picture says, a sign of the quality of 2 and a sign of the quality of the 3 too. There are 2 of them, one for each Term, since it's a 1:1 relationship. I would love to know how you get to a sum or difference with only one input. You don't. Both need 2 Terms with signs. In this case +2 and +3. 2 is the first, and 3 is the second Yep, corresponding to the 2 plus signs, +2 and +3. 1 unary operator, 1 Term, 2 of each. Two inputs for addition 2 jumps on the number line, starting from 0, +2, then +3, ends up at +5 on the number line. This is how it's taught in elementary school. Did you get it this time? The real question is did you? Was that too fast? No, you just forgot one of the plus signs in your counting, the one we usually omit by convention if at the start of the expression (whereas we never omit a minus sign if it's at the start of the expression). You can go back and read it again if you need to I'm not the one who doesn't know how unary operators work. Try it again, this time not leaving out the first plus sign. Fine, operation then Nope, not an operation either. The fact that you think “!” is the same thing as brackets I see you don't know how grouping symbols work either. Maybe you’re just being weirdly pedantic about operator vs operation Grouping symbols are neither. Which would be a strange hill to die on since the original topic was operations You were the one who incorrectly brought grouping symbols into it, not me. I could keep providing sources You haven't provided any yet! I still don’t have the time to screen shot some random crap with no supporting evidence Glad you finally admitted you have no supporting evidence. Bye then!