da ting

my microwave beeps if you hit the cancel button. it makes me avoid using it.

i would say go for it. you’ve got a gift

i propose using the tag NSFC, short for Not Safe For Climate

kale is and will always be bird food. it is unfair to kale to judge it as human food, that was never its purpose.

wait until you guys hear about feta cheese on pizza. at this point i will add the feta to the pizza myself if i have to.

i’ve been really liking “confronting capitalism with vivek chibber”. it’s always a treat to hear him speak

this is p-adic gender erasure

i guess you could say this is a bad faith argument

that’s pretty sick. i should start blowing up my food too

i don’t need to know what a vitamin is in order to eat things that have vitamins. to be honest i don’t even really know what calories or protein are, but i probably still eat things that have them. and vegetables too.

i can give directions very easily. i simply read them off of my phone

dropship proposals

the concept of infinity + 1 can be rigorously defined (as an ordinal number). the basic idea is that infinity +1 is the set containing every single positive whole number, in increasing order, and then something else.

but what you said about infinity in calculus is correct. the “infinity” that appears in calculus is conceptually a different idea of infinity and it’s basically just an inconvenient choice of notation that they’re called the same thing.

in complex analysis, there’s also the riemann sphere, which is basically a way to view the sphere as the complex plane in addition to the “point at infinity”. i.e., 0 is the south pole, and infinity is the north pole. and in this context it’s fairly common to say stuff like “f(infinity) = 0” or “f(2) = infinity”. these can all be understood in terms of limits as you described, but it does sort of blur the line between “actual value” and “potential value”, since infinity is actually a point in the riemann sphere, but it’s primarily described in terms of limits.

this is a false dichotomy. in this context, i don’t think there’s much benefit to mollycoddling, and i don’t think there’s much benefit to open hostility. i was simply trying to ask why you chose to reply in such a hostile tone.

it’s also not clear to me how chainweasel is a genocide apologist. could you explain how you reached that conclusion?

what is the benefit of writing a response with such a hostile tone?

the secret is that all spaces are actually euclidean, due to the whitney embedding theorem.

(not really though. i just wanted to take my turn at improperly stating famous math results on the internet.)

i have always been amazed that people are able to function normally with nails that long. not trying to hate on it or anything, just genuinely impressed. i don’t think i could do what they do.

i first read this comic as saying “ice cream in carbonara” and thought the injuries were justified. but after rereading it i’m not so sure anymore

isn’t the monks response inherently political? are we to assume he himself is not happy?