Keto-mojo asked for their address and phone number, so they said they were homeless and lost their phone, and it worked

FTFY

No, by our current understanding there is no length smaller than a Planck length, and any distance must therefore be divisible by an integer. That is, the length is made up of discrete quanta. Pi, or any other irrational number, is by definition not divisible by an integer, or it would be a ratio, making it rational. This has nothing to do with the accuracy or precision of our measures.

Plus, if you have two people with legit access, you can pretty easily figure out what’s going on and defeat it.

My only guess as to what this could mean is that since quantum mechanics is quantum, i.e. discrete, the universe therefore cannot be continuous as the reals are. But this is a category error. Just because you could never find an object that is, say, exactly pi meters long, does not mean that the definition of pi is threatened. There’s nothing infinite that we can observe, but infinity is still a useful concept. And it works both ways; just because quantum mechanics is our best model of the universe doesn’t mean the universe is therefore quantum. 150 years ago everyone believed the universe was like a big clockwork mechanism, perfectly deterministic, because Newtonian physics are deterministic. And who knows, maybe they were right, and we just don’t have the framework to understand it so we have a nondeterministic approximation!

So because quantum mechanics is well modeled by imaginary numbers, the existence of quantum particles threatens the definition of irrational numbers? That doesn’t make any sense.

My man did both though

The other constant is C

Suoll

At risk of sounding cringe, it’s evidence of one injustice system.

$375 million in today’s dollars would cover (adjusted for inflation) the marketing and development of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_video_games_to_develop

IMO we invented it, because numbers don’t real. But that’s a deeper philosophical question.

I truly have no idea what you’re saying.

As a programmer, I’m ashamed to admit that the correct answer is no. If zero was natural we wouldn’t have needed 10s of thousands of years to invent it.

I don’t want to be on this planet anymore

If I say someone is my ally, I’m automatically their ally.

You might be lying; you also might not understand what the person needs or wants, to the point that the actions you are taking or endorsing are harmful to them.

I avoid gas stations that have ads. There’s a chain where I live that doesn’t do them, so they get all my business.

Is there a reason this requirement doesn’t apply to iMessage as well?

Obviously taken to an extreme it’s bad, but I think it’s fine to have a function that can do one thing two or more different ways and ignore a certain parameter if one of the ways doesn’t need it. I’ve done some programming against the Win32 API and this is what jumped to mind for me, and I think it’s the typical case here. If I were designing from scratch I might split it into n functions that do it one way, but it’s such a small difference I wouldn’t fret over it. And of course making a change to the Windows API is an undertaking, probably not worth it in most cases.

Ok, but we all should admit: .net is a terrible name.