That’s because, to my understanding, the prerequisite to be able to launch one is “handle the raw, unfiltered firehose of all the traffic on the entire platform”. A relay has to be a mirror of the entire company’s hosting infastructure, and you’d have to essentially do it for free. It’s no puzzle to me why no one’s done it yet.

For a few years now, Windows has had the capability of marking certain directories as case-sensitive. So you can have a mixed-case-sensitivity filesystem experience now. Yeah. :/

Of course they contain their own plastic… how am I not surprised…

Honest question: what about cigarette butts makes them not biodegradable, exactly? To my vague understanding of what they’re made of, I know them to be cheifly comprised of paper and extract from dried leaves. Even after considering all the other additive compounds in cigs added for taste and effect, I can’t picture a lot of it by mass being forever chemicals like plastics.

That asked, I’m not convinced littering is acceptable even for biodegradable things. Far from all “biodegradable” materials completely disintegrate on a short timescale. Even IF cigarette butts degrade like plain paper and dry leaves, they wouldn’t do it quickly. If it’s a place where even a single smoker haunts multiple times a week, smoking and discarding multiple cigs at a time, they can pile up faster than they disappear.

And that’s not even considering all the toxins that would leech out from the things that will remain at elevated levels for as long as the littering continued.

Wow, I found the one other MATE user. Cheers.

I had a few dozen fumos on my desk for several months to no ill complaint.

I’d buy controlling share of all three companies that own Pokemon and change absolutely nothing except fund Game Freak to hire more software talent and give them enough time for an actual development cycle worth a damn.

I think you can have it, but you’d need to spend a pretty penny.

All it would take is calling an electrician to run the appropriate wiring from the place you want the kettle plugged in to you breaker box, connect it to the breaker box with the appropriate breaker, cap off the other end with the appropriate plug (a 240V plug does exist in America), and then buy a kettle capable of receiving the rated voltage and current and splice on the appropriate plug (because I presume you won’t find one sold with that plug).

An extremely expensive way to save maybe three minutes boiling water, but you can do it.

Sure, but then the wait staff expects you to tip at least 20% for simply being given one, and if you don’t you’re an asshole.

This is somewhat a “people live in cities” graph, but not as stark of one I expected. Not all big cities are so educated, plus there are a lot of rural places that draw in a surprising number of people with advanced degrees.

Still, I’m amused that Interstate 29 in specific lights up like a string of Christmas lights.

perhaps they should just lay square eggs

I only actively seek games I want to play. I have negative desire to hoard games I know I will never open. I probably wouldn’t take the clutter even if they paid me to take it. Steam or Epic.

My Steam library is caked up with a bunch of decade old Humble Bundle packing peanuts and frankly I kind of wish it wasn’t.

On the rare chance a game I’ve been wanting to play is the free givaway, I might take it if it’s on Steam just because I’m already invested in that platform. If Epic was the one giving it away I probably wouldn’t bother. I don’t need my games library splintered across multiple launchers. I’m already annoyed at having the one. I’d prefer no launcher at all.

I’m fuzzy on the deeper details. I think you can do something like this, but you have to be very careful, in ways where you don’t have to be so careful with ✓-1.

One of the more obvious ways to consider: plot a graph of y = 1 / x. Note how as x approaches zero from the right, the graph shoots up, asymptotically approaching the y-axis and shooting up to infinity. It’s very tempting to say that 1 / 0 is “infinity”. “Infinity” is not a real number, but nothing is stopping you from defining a new kind of number to represent this singularity if you want to. But at that point you have left the real numbers. Which is fine, right? Complex numbers aren’t real numbers either, after all…

But look at the left side of the graph. You have the same behavior, but the graph shoots down, not up. It suggests that the limit of approaching from the left is “negative infinity”. Quite literally the furthest possible imaginable thing from the “infinity” we had to define for the right side. But this is supposed to be the same value, at x = 0. Just by approaching it from different directions, we don’t just get two different answers, we get perhaps the most different answers possible.

I think it’s not hard to intuit a handwavey answer that this simply represents the curve of y = 1 / x “wrapping around through infinity” or some notion like that. Sure, perhaps that is what’s going on. But dancing around a singularity like that mathematically isn’t simple. The very nature of mathematical singularities is to give you nonsensical results. Generally, having them at all tends to be a sign that you have the wrong model for something.

You can mostly avoid this problem by snipping off the entire left half of the x-axis. Shrink your input domain to only non-negative numbers. Then, I believe, you can just slap “infinity” on it and run with it and be mostly fine. But that’s a condition you have to be upfront about. This becomes a special case solution, not a generalized one.

I haven’t looked into it, but I believe this singularity gets even more unweildy if you try to extend it to complex numbers. All the while, complex numbers “just work”. You don’t need doctor’s gloves to handle them. √-1 isn’t a mathematical singularity, it’s a thing with an answer, the answer just isn’t a real number.

This is a question I see from time to time, and it’s a good question to ask.

Your question as I understand it can be phrased another way as:

The square root of -1 has no defined answer. So we put a mask on it and pretend that’s the answer. We do math with the masked number and suddenly everything is fine now. Why can’t we do the same thing to division by zero?

The difference is that, if you try to put a funny mask on the square root of -1 and treat it like a number, nothing breaks, but if you try the same thing with a division by zero, all sorts of things break.

If you define i = √-1, that is the only thing i can ever be. That specific quantity. You can factor it out of stuff, raise it to that exponent, whatever. And if it is ever convenient to do so, you can always unmask it back into that thing, e.g. i^2 = (√-1)^2 = -1. All the while, all the already existing rules of math stay true.

A division by zero isn’t like this, because if you tried it, every number divided by zero would equal to the same thing. If we give it a name, say, 1 / 0 = z, then it would also be true that 2 / 0 = z. We could then solve both sides for zero:

1 / z = 0

2 / z = 0

then set them equal:

1 / z = 2 / z

then multiply both sides by z:

1 = 2

which is a contradiction.

i doesn’t have this problem.

There is no such thing as a free and benevolent product with an advertising budget.

Is this another one of those “by law, the addition has to look visibly distinct from the historical structure” renovations?

Same thing that allegedly happened to this one?

Zero-effort french dip:

1. Buy an arm roast at the grocery store the night before, sleep.
2. Wake up, dump in arm roast, a can of french onion soup, top off with water or beef stock
3. Cover and set to Low, then go to work for the day
4. Return home in the evening, shred meat with some forks, serve on buns with cheese of your choice

It’s not glamorous, and you could do a lot better with more intelligent ingredient choice and more prep (searing the roast first, adding veg, doing the broth from scratch, etc). But the result-to-effort ratio of the bare minimum is unmatched if you’re ever in a “fuck it, guyslop night” kinda mood.

For slightly more effort, I sometimes make a very simple hot apple cider recipe. That’s non-alcoholic for all the non-Americans, though you can always spike it with your spirit of choice:

For every 8 cups (~1.8L, 2L is probably fine) of apple juice from concentrate, add:

• 1 tsp whole cloves
• 1 tsp whole allspice
• 2 cinnamon sticks
• 1/3 cup packed (~70g) light brown sugar
• 1 large orange, sliced

Cook on low for 2 hours, fish out solids, serve hot.

If you can specifically find “honeycrisp” apple cider at the grocery store to use as your base, it’s even better. I can sometimes find it seasonally at Walmart.

Well, I also tend to consider ultrawide monitors a mistake in their own right. Why would you want a 49" wide literally anything if it’s not some kind of immersive media experience where menus are irrelevant anyway?

Of course, if that is in fact exactly what you bought it for, I have no complaints. Even if I disagree with having one for other purposes, that’s still no reason for the OS to punish you for having one when you try to use it that way when that problem is completely avoidable.

I’ve personally always loathed the global menu bar paradigm of macOS. Having a menu bar that’s wholly detatched from the currently open window that is context-aware based on which window has focus always felt like an irritating speed bump to me. My mind feels like the OS itself is hiding things from me by only allowing me to see a single app’s menu bar at a time.

But then again, I have no objective qualms with it. I’m sure I could adapt to it. When have I realistically needed to see more than one menu bar at once? I can’t name a time. I’m probbably just pearl-clutching at the perceived arresting of my agency to do things when in fact I’m losing effectively nothing.

At any rate, we agree it’s a sure sight better than the shitshow that is GTK. “Hm? Window decorators and shit? Nahhh, those are your problem. Go roll your own.” For the flagship windowing toolkit of the GNOME Project, the DE I’d consider the closest in philosophy to what macOS has going on, that was a rather strange position to take.