It can result in some rather clunky terms though.

And frankly, “fructose foster parent” is cheating. That’s on the same level as, say, “sugar step daddy”.

Why do they need to be alliterations though? I mean, sugar daddy isn’t one either.

Yes, that is why I mentioned the IAU’s definition was more specific.

Very large? Enough mass to have a round shape.

Dwarf everything nearby? Clear out its orbit by colliding with/capturing/ejecting shit.

I propose a better definition:

Planets are very large objects orbitting a star that dwarf everything nearby

I’m pretty sure this is the intent of the IAU’s definition. It’s just more specific.

Do you mean the asteroids at the Lagrangian points? Every single planet has asteroids there because math/physics dictates those points to be stable. Jupiter has the most at its points because it’s the largest planet.

Same with Neptune cleaning its orbit: It has collided with every single thing in its orbit EXCEPT those that synced their orbits to Neptune. An object that is gravitationally dominated by a single planet should not be a planet under any definition.

Sources because I had to read into your claims and I’m no astrophysicist:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrange_point

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonant_trans-Neptunian_object

Unless you learned German in Austria-Hungary between 1879 and 1901 of course.

Could it make testing less conclusive? Part of testing is to see whether people actually enjoy the game. And I’d conjecture immersion-breaking placeholder assets could lead to worse testing reviews.

“Oh no, I’m stuck! If only someone was there to help me~”

Feels ineffective to get you to actually drink water.

Now, stuffing a funnel into your mouth, that might do the trick.

Easy, just respond with: “Make me”

Even though this isn’t C, but if we take from the C11 draft §6.8.5 point 6 (https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1570.pdf):

An iteration statement whose controlling expression is not a constant expression, that performs no input/output operations, does not access volatile objects, and performs no synchronization or atomic operations in its body, controlling expression, or (in the case of a for statement) its expression-3, may be assumed by the implementation to terminate

“new Random().nextInt()” might perform I/O though so it could still be defined behavior. Or the compiler does not assume this assumption.

But an aggressive compiler could realize the loop would not terminate if x does not become 10 so x must be 10 because the loop can be assumed to terminate.

Infinite loops are often weird though. They could be seen as undefined behavior and the compiler may do whatever it feels like.

Not sure about the last one though. The other two are trivial to optimize away.

Occasionally Imgur is blocked but you can just switch the VPN to a less populous country and it will not be blocked. Still annoying though.

Mostly because Apple’s update policy is superior to A LOT of Android companies. OEMs are really slow when patching known vulnerabilities.

Quick study I found when trying to find evidence:

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/16-Acar-A-Device-Centric-Analysis-of-Android-Security-Updates.pdf

Example from that study:

Compared to the top three OEMs we examined so far, Google is the one with the most stable support behavior. All of the Pixel devices receive monthly security updates without any delay or missed SPLs [Security Patch Levels]

It’s utterly insane this is noteworthy. Not delaying security updates for KNOWN vulnerabilities should not be exemplary.

Is it actually possible for a fish-like animal to have eyes at the front (i.e. an animal with a hydrodynamic shape that spends all its time underwater)?

I feel like that’s really difficult for evolution to achieve, especially because the mouth has to go somewhere at the front too. I mean, look at where the lights of a high-speed train are placed and their shape.

Intuitively it feels easier to just put the eyes on the side. Plus it feels like there’s a lower risk of damaging them when bumping into something.

1 heroin please

Interesting kink but I’m not shaming.

Not a lot.

Let M be the set of all memes.

Is this well-defined? How can you tell whether something is an element of M?

f(x) is a meme making fun of x for all x in M

Does such an f even exist? Why? Obviously it exists for some x in M but for all?

Thus there exists a normie meme n

What’s a normie meme? Why does its existance follow?

and a unique function F for all natural number k

This again requires f to be well-defined.

The set M is also equipped with a dankness norm.

Prove it has that norm and please also prove it fulfills all properties of a norm.

with property that ||F(k)|| ≤ ||F(k+1)|| for all k in N.

[proof required]. Idea for a counterexample: A meme making fun of a meme in such a terrible way it cannot possibly be “danker”. Though this would require f^-1(terrible meme making fun of meme) to not be empty.