With 17, I understand that you’re referring to how 299,999 is also divisible by 17. What is the 51 reference, though? I know there’s 3,999,999,999,999 but that starts with a 3. Not the same at all.
With 17, I understand that you’re referring to how 299,999 is also divisible by 17. What is the 51 reference, though? I know there’s 3,999,999,999,999 but that starts with a 3. Not the same at all.
You can just bitwise AND those with …000000001 (for however many bits are in your number). If the result is 0, then the number is even, and if it’s 1, then the number is odd. This works for negative numbers because it discards the negative signing bit.
Then you should return false, unless the remainder is also greater than or equal to the twenty second root of 4194304. Note, that I’ve only checked up to 4194304 to make sure this works, so if you need bigger numbers, you’ll have to validate on your own.
When I was in college, our sportsball team won a game against the other guy’s sportsball team by not many points. Many hundreds of students started a chant going out of the sportsball arena, and four freshmen decided to light a couch on fire, apparently thinking they’d just blend in. The police were there immediately, firefighters put out the couch in a few minutes, and they all got hit with fines.
In short, I think you’re exactly right, and most sportsball fans just want to be loud and drink.
Any reasonably powerful god could make a non-Euclidean spacetime in which the points equidistant from a central point also form 4 straight line segments of equal length that meet at right angles.
I also think the classic rock so heavy it can’t be lifted fails, for the same reason that an omnipotent god could clearly commit suicide, if it wanted to (and once it did, it would no longer have the capability to perform other actions).
The omniscience thing is harder, because of things like incompleteness theorem, but I don’t think I can really describe what it means to know everything in the first place. “Able to provide a true, and comprehensive answer to any question for which a true, and comprehensive answer is possible” doesn’t seem to give any contradictions, but as you mention has the feel of dancing around all the hard issues.
When a monopoly is faced with a smaller, more efficient competitor, they cut prices to keep people from switching, or buy the new competitor, make themselves more efficient, and increase profits.
When Steam was faced with smaller competition that charged lower prices, they did - nothing. They’re not the leader because of a trick, or clever marketing, but because they give both publishers and gamers a huge stack of things they want.
This makes for way better TV than if the camera simply worked. It’s a mistake that a human would probably never make, and definitely not persist in making.
Ha! Unlike (some of) you plebs, I live in a very exclusive time zone with less than a billion people in it.
As long as you can maintain a steady stream of ejaculate, it’ll feel the same for her.
… Single ply toilet paper?
I have made fun of another man for peeing sitting down, but in a manner comparable to making fun of an ugly outfit. The very hidden secret is I sit to pee sometimes too, and I have ugly clothes that I wear sometimes. To answer the other questions:
If I’m already sitting, I’d pee sitting, 100% of the time.
Yes, and that’s one reason I would sit to pee.
Not spotless, but it seems normal to me. If there’s pee visible anywhere, I wipe it with paper. My wife mops the floor more often than I do.
I don’t have a ready answer for this.
Neither Lynnwood nor Everett is part of the City of Seattle. There is a separate local government for each of those three areas, with separate people setting a separate agenda, prioritizing separate resources.
The government of Seattle cannot install cameras in Everett to increase safety there (or even for fundraising).
In the area I live, this would mean you could be standing right next to the pizza cooking bore, and still be outside of the delivery range.
Whenever I’ve been on the hiring side of an interview, the people seated in the interview aren’t given any special “Keep the company safe” training, but the HR person coordinating always have been. I suspect that’s why it works much better to ask in the interview than after it.
Brain one way, but other brain other way. Chemical stuff is making brain stuff happen. Makes see different.
If you’re in the US, run for Congress, win, reform the medicaid backed doctor residency program, with the aim of opening it up so many more people can become doctors. Then watch as the new supply brings down salaries, and eventually gets lazy/ineffective doctors fired. Revenge is a dish best served nation wide, as they say.
I’m mentally well, I just like thinking about hypotheticals. I have no plans (nor any desire) to fight any number of squirrels to the death, and I do not condone doing so as entertainment or sport.
There are details missing in this question that matter tremendously. Squirrels are faster and more agile than us. If they are well coordinated, and behave optimally to win (without concern to their individual survival, only the group’s success), I think it would take only a small number of squirrels to brutally murder most people, something like 5. I think their best strategy would be to go for the eyes first, then inflict bleeding injuries and escape again before the person can react. Without tools, and without backup, this approach wouldn’t take long to wear down most people.
If the squirrels don’t care about their own survival, but make straightforward attacks, I’d think closer to 10-20. The person’s injuries will still compound quickly, but once thet have a grip of a squirrel, it wouldn’t be especially hard to lethally injure.
If the squirrels still behave like squirrels, and are instead attacking because (for example), they are starving, then the number probably doesn’t matter much, as they’re more likely to go after each other, and the person would have the opportunity to plan and ambush small groups at a time.
Not a song per se, but I was listening to “Relaxing - Bach in my ass”.
Trump was pretty ineffective in his first term, largely because he did a terrible job of supporting people who really agreed with his agenda, and an even worse job of removing people from influential positions who didn’t.
He said during his campaign that he knew much better who to trust, but now he’s got Elon Musk and RFK Jr. prominently featured. I don’t think he has learned anything, and I think he will be just as ineffective this time.
It’s possible that some of the Republicans in Congress will support more of his agenda, but even there if they have to overcome the filibuster, I don’t think mass deportation, a federal abortion ban, or most of the rest of the potential worst of it is in the cards.