Kogasa

If a line-following robot bumps into a 3 year old, it might knock them over. It’s a different situation with high speed 2 ton death machines

Yeah. Normal whoppers are crunchy. 1 in 4 whoppers is soggy and chewy and hard to eat

Whoppers are good but the risk of getting a bad one is not worth it. Ech

It can be, usually for college credit though

At the universities I went to, Calc 2 was integration, sequences and series, then Calc 3 was multivariable. They really pack all the harder parts into 2.

It’s a reach, but the Fourier transformation of a Schwarz (rapidly decaying) function is also a Schwarz function. Compact support is a strictly stronger condition than Schwarz (the function must eventually decay to 0) but doesn’t have this nice property with respect to Fourier transforms, i.e. the FT of a compactly supported function is Schwarz but not necessarily compactly supported

I’m stuck on the homological algebra exercise

Once every 50 years or so

If my cooking senses are right, it would be like cooking bacon in a stainless steel pan, which is sticky and burny but not impossible

Eddie Bauer and Carhartt are my go-tos. Both carry tons of tall sizes. Wrangler has some too and may be cheaper.

Java is a fine choice. Much prefer it over pseudocode.

I have read programs a lot shorter than 500 lines which I don’t have the expertise to write.

I worked with Progress via an ERP that had been untouched and unsupported for almost 20 years. Damn easy to break stuff, more footguns than SQL somehow

This has nothing to do with Windows or Linux. Crowdstrike has in fact broken Linux installs in a fairly similar way before.

Sure, throw people in jail who haven’t committed a crime, that’ll fix all kinds of systemic issues

Catch and then what? Return to what?

Just explaining that the limitations of Gödel’s theorems are mostly formal in nature. If they are applicable, the more likely case of incompleteness (as opposed to inconsistency) is not really a problem.

Dunno what you’re trying to say. Yes, if ZFC is inconsistent it would be an issue, but in the unlikely event this is discovered, it would be overwhelmingly probable that a similar set of axioms could be used in a way which is transparent to the vast majority of mathematics. Incompleteness is more likely and less of an issue.

It’s extremely unlikely given the pathological nature of all known unprovable statements. And those are useless, even to mathematicians.

Nobody is practically concerned with the “incompleteness” aspect of Gödel’s theorems. The unprovable statements are so pathological/contrived that it doesn’t appear to suggest any practical statement might be unprovable. Consistency is obviously more important. Sufficiently weak systems may also not be limited by the incompleteness theorems, i.e. they can be proved both complete and consistent.