Skip to content

An LAPD helicopter claimed to have ID'ed protesters from above and threatened to "come to your house"

Technology
144 76 86
  • 430 Stimmen
    18 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    Z
    That's why I generalized my answer to USB and not only USB-C.
  • 76 Stimmen
    6 Beiträge
    8 Aufrufe
    etherphon@lemmy.worldE
    We all know how well not regulating social media has gone, why the fuck not let's just double down.
  • ChatGPT Lost a Chess Game to an Atari 2600

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    8 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 100 Stimmen
    49 Beiträge
    73 Aufrufe
    A
    Okay man.
  • 104 Stimmen
    168 Beiträge
    69 Aufrufe
    smartmanapps@programming.devS
    At least that’s not how I’ve been taught in school If you had a bad teacher that doesn't mean everyone else had a bad teacher. You’re not teaching kids how to prove the quadratic formula, do you? We teach them how to do proofs, including several specific ones. No, you teach them how to use it instead. We teach them how to use everything, and how to do proofs as well. Your whole argument is just one big strawman. Again, with the order of operations Happens to be the topic of the post. It’s not a thing Yes it is! I’ve given you two examples that don’t follow any So you could not do the brackets first and still get the right answer? Nope! 2×2×(2-2)/2=0 2×2×2-2/2=7 That’s kinda random, but sure? Not random at all, given you were talking about students understanding how Maths works. 2+3×4 then it’s not an order of operation that plays the role here Yes it is! If I have 1 2-litre bottle of milk, and 4 3-litre bottles of milk, there's only 1 correct answer for how many litres of milk of have, and it ain't 20! Even elementary school kids know how to work it out just by counting up. They all derive from each other No they don't. The proof of order of operations has got nothing to do with any of the properties you mentioned. For example, commutation is used to prove identity And neither is used to prove the order of operations. 2 operators, no order followed Again with a cherry-picked example that only includes operators of the same precedence. You have no property that would allow for (2+3)×4 to be equal 2+3×4 And yet we have a proof of why 14 is the only correct answer to 2+3x4, why you have to do the multiplication first. Is that not correct? Of course it is. So what? It literally has subtraction and distribution No it didn't. It had Brackets (with subtraction inside) and Multiplication and Division. I thought you taught math, no? Yep, and I just pointed out that what you just said is wrong. 2-2(1+2) has Subtraction and Distribution. 2-2 is 2 being, hear me out, subtracted from 2 Which was done first because you had it inside Brackets, therefore not done in the Subtraction step in order of operations, but the Brackets step. Also, can you explain how is that cherry-picking? You already know - you know which operations to pick to make it look like there's no such thing as order of operations. If I tell you to look up at the sky at midnight and say "look - there's no such thing as the sun", that doesn't mean there's no such thing as the sun.
  • Audible unveils plans to use AI voices to narrate audiobooks

    Technology technology
    6
    1
    0 Stimmen
    6 Beiträge
    28 Aufrufe
    fancypantsfire@lemm.eeF
    Ah, I see what you’re saying, I misunderstood and thought you were taking about picking a different book. Indeed, for the worst case scenario a mediocre AI voice could be an improvement!
  • 56 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    16 Aufrufe
    cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zoneC
    !upliftingnews@lemmy.world
  • 0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    9 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet