hallettj

Oh this is just the thing for playing bard, and casting “vicious mockery” several times per combat

Somehow I’m very familiar with the first line, but none of the other lyrics. TIL!

This is exactly why we have Reversed Polish Notation. When will people learn?

Oh goddammit! Why doesn’t PEMDAS prepare us for unary negation??

The problem is that the way PEMDAS is usually taught multiplication and division are supposed to have equal precedence. The acronym makes it look like multiplication comes before division, but you’re supposed to read MD and as one step. (The same goes for addition and subtraction so AS is also supposed to be one step.) It this example the division is left of the multiplication so because they have equal precedence (according to PEMDAS) the division applies first.

IMO it’s bad acronym design. It would be easier if multiplication did come before division because that is how everyone intuitively reads the acronym.

Maybe it should be PE(M/D)(A/S). But that version is tricky to pronounce. Or maybe there shouldn’t be an acronym at all.

The parentheses step only covers expressions inside parentheses. That’s 2 + 2 in this case. The times-2 part is outside the parentheses so it’s evaluated in a different step.

The comment from subignition explains that the phone’s answer, 16, is what you get by strictly following PEMDAS: the rule is that multiplication and division have the same precedence, and you evaluate them from left-to-right.

The calculator uses a different convention where either multiplication has higher priority than division, or where “implicit” multiplication has higher priority (where there is no multiply sign between adjacent expressions).

I was curious if this was real, and it is! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7966641.stm

This comment really speaks to how I feel.

In addition to flattening the wealth curve on the high end, I think the first change I would want is to increase the federal minimum wage. For decades wages have been stagnant while cost-of-living has grown which has led to mass economic insecurity. I think a lot of current political tension is a direct result. That makes it difficult to cooperate to implement policies that would help people.

Radium produces the most radiation by miles. The plutonium gives off some alpha radiation that won’t hurt you if you don’t eat it. (Eye protection would be a good idea I suppose.) I don’t remember what U-235 emits but I don’t think it’s a huge amount.

And also asking, how does it compare to a high-yield savings account?

This is what I use. Or if you don’t need image/PDF embedding or mobile support then VimWiki is a similar solution that is FOSS.

No, I only heard the Cortex review which made me not want to read it.

Wow, this is one of the most complicated Snopes analyses I’ve seen. But it seems like the statement is accurate with caveats. If the brightest component of Polaris is probably 50 million years old what was there before wasn’t really Polaris. And then it doesn’t make a difference whether sharks have been around for 450 million or 195 million years.

Well now the tense standoffs in TNG will forever be undercut by giggling

One of my favorites is from Sisko, but I guess this one is more of a soliloquy than a dialogue,

The trouble is Earth! On Earth, there is no poverty, no crime, no war. You look out the window of Starfleet Headquarters and you see paradise. Well it’s easy to be a saint in paradise, but the Maquis do not live in paradise! Out there, in the Demilitarized Zone, all the problems haven’t been solved yet! Out there, there are no saints! Just people! Angry, scared, determined people, who are going to do whatever it takes to survive, whether it meets with Federation approval or not!

It’s Mao Zedong. He said, “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” He also led China to mass starvation and terrible poverty, so not someone Picard would subscribe to.

It’s because new phones are too big! I’m planning to take my reasonably-sized phone to the grave!

It did have the drumming for me

This points to an interesting feature that appears in English: phrasal verbs. This is where a verb is made up of a verb word used in combination with one or more prepositions or “particles”. For example in the phrase “put cheese on the pizza” the verb word “put” combines with the preposition “on”. (There is no particle in this example.) Even though the words “put” and “on” are not consecutive, and even though “on” has its own function as a preposition, “put on” together form a verb that is lexically distinct (has different meaning and rules) from “put” used with a different preposition or particle.

IIUC you even get a different meaning if you use the same words with a different function. With “on” as a preposition you get, “put cheese on the pizza”. But with the particle form of “on” you get a different verb with a different meaning: “put on a coat”.

The use you posted, “put cheese”, looks like a transitive form of “put” which would be distinct from both of the phrasal verbs I described. My guess is that this is dialect-specific: maybe some English speakers perceive transitive “put” as valid, while others only use “put” as part of a phrasal verb.

Language is messy, and there is no authoritative set of rules for English so you’ll find lots of cases where people disagree about correct grammar. One of the classics is whether “where” substitutes for a prepositional or a noun phrase. Lots of people feel it is correct to say, “Where is that at?” while others think that sounds wrong, like saying, “It’s at by the corner.” (I think this might be the basis for the made-up rule, “don’t end sentences with a preposition”.)