Ok

To make people aware that lemmy exists in case someone shares. I recommend we all add it to our memes.

In some of these confrontations, ants can adopt ritualized behavior, even governed by certain implicit rules,[1] for example by organizing duels between the most important ants of each colony or choosing a specific location for a battle.

Damn.

I got the pic by googling for “anthill”, but it seems you’re correct. It stems from an article that uses the term “anthill” for both ant and termite hills.

Subscribed, top of the day, at the same time of day, every day.

Plus being a proponent of steroid use

A timeless classic. One day I’ll be showing this to my grandchildren, talking about how dank our memes used to be.

Why would the absolute amount of money matter for investing vs. saving cash? Assuming he finds a broker for which absolute transaction fees are negligible, the only important factors should be time window and risk tolerance, both of which are independent of the absolute saving rate.

For me, it’s not about having good content that is not on reddit, but avoiding all kinds of bad content that is on reddit. I can scroll through the “top of the day” list of my subscriptions in a relatively short time and find many posts that I enjoy or that interest me. When I used reddit, there was always so much noise, ragebait, clickbait, sometimes interesting questions with only bland answers, etc.

All that I wanted were things I had before.

All that I needed, I never needed more.

All of my questions were answers to my sins.

All of my endings were waiting to begin.

Same in Germany, I think this common in many countries, no?

Wtf??

Should ask somewhere else, you won’t find these people in a federated open-source communist link aggregator website.

How is national socialism a mask for capitalism?

So they were proven right, got a lunch, and paid nothing… The conclusion is that there is a free lunch.

Very interesting, thank you.

As a background, I loved the Ezio games and also enjoyed AC3 somewhat. I also love open world RPGs in general. But I hate grinding and mandatory generic side quests.

I tried it years ago, but did not like it and stopped playing after some hours. Assassinations via sneaking up and one-shotting were not possible AFAIR, which ruined the fun on assassinations for me. RPG mechanics like leveling and skills were present, but were designed in a way that added nothing of value to the experience while requiring a boring grind. There were many side quests, but they felt boring and generic and. I could have overlooked these things and concentrated on the main story, but engaging in the level grind and the generic side quests was to a large degree mandatory to be able to continue the story. That made me feel like I’m wasting my time and made me stop playing.

Overall I felt that the game tried to find some compromise between story-based action adventure and open-world RPG, but just ended up combining the worst of both worlds. It felt like the RPG features were pushed in top-down (“everyone is doing open world, levels and skill trees now, we should put that in the game”) without any regard to WHY these features work well in some games and how they have to be integrated in order to make the experience more fun.

Even NDS games should be pretty playable on a phone. Give Heart Gold/Soul Silver a try if you’ve missed it, they’re the best Pokémon games.

Europa nicht den Laien überlassen ;)

I’m kind of dissatisfied with the answers here. As soon as you talk about actually drawing a line in the real world, the distinction between rational and irrational numbers stops making sense. In other words, the distinction between rational and irrational numbers is a concept that describes numbers to an accuracy that is impossible to achieve in real life. So you cannot draw a line with a clearly irrational length, but neither can you draw a line with a clearly rational length. You can only define theoretical mathematical constructs which can then be classified as rational or irrational, if applicable.

More mathematically phrased: in real life, your line to which you assign the length L will always have an inaccuracy of size x>0. But for any real L, the interval (L-x;L+x) contains both an infinite number of rational and an infinite number of irrational numbers. Note that this is independent of how small the value of x is. This is why I said that the accuracy, at which the concept of rational and irrational numbers make sense, is impossible to achieve in real life.

So I think your confusion stems from mixing the lengths we assign to objects in the real world with the lengths we can accurately compute for mathematical objects that we have created in our minds using axioms and definitions.