Not sure if you actually meant logarithmic or exponential. An exponential tax rate would mean that the more you own the next unit of value would be a lot more in tax, while a logarithmic tax rate would mean that the more you own the next unit of value would be a lot less in tax. See x² versus log₂(x) (or any logarithm base, really). The exponential (x²) would start slow and then increase fast, and the logarithmic one would start increasing fast and then go into increasing slowly.

https://www.desmos.com/calculator/7l1turktmc

I care, but mostly because it’s fun. Just like apparently there’s no such thing as a fish, and that fruits are vegetables…

Squeel

That’s probably wrong. You don’t want to use something other than Office or Adobe suite because you’re used to that, even though there are programs that work perfectly well for the same things available on Linux. And that’s okay. It’s okay to want to keep using what you’re used to. But it’s a lie to say you’ll never get by without those programs you’re used to.

The Dune trilogy when I was in something like 6th or 7th degree. It was just such a great piece of fiction to introduce quite a few philosophical thoughts at the time. I still enjoy the books. (and the old film with Sting in it)

I just think that kilobyte should have been 1000 (in binary, so 16 in decimal) bytes and so on. Just keep everything relating to the binary storage in binary. That couldn’t ever become confusing, right?

Except it doesn’t specify that you go back in time to when you were 6 years old, but that you “restart your life at 6 years of age” so a fairly reasonable interpretation would be that you’ll be a 6 year old in 2024. Monkeys paw and all that.

Now, I personally think it’s more interesting if it did mean that you went back in time.

It doesn’t say you go back in time to being six years old, you start over as a six year old. A six year old in 2024.

Hashtag monkeys paw.

Nice. Although someone only ever drinking tea does humour me. They’re being a tea-totaller XD

I disagree that we shouldn’t constrain the use of words to their definitions. It’s what helps make the meaning of sentences the most clear for everyone. If people had actually done that then the definition of “literally” wouldn’t include “figuratively” and a lot of misunderstandings could be avoided.

Otherwise we could end up with people saying that when they wrote “all white people deserve to die” what they actually meant was that they deserve to live, since that’s how they use the word “die”. It’s nonsensical to me.

But it’s not a yoke, it’s a steering wheel, which generally turn up to 1 and 1/2 times each way, which with a small radius roundabout (which is a lot of them in Norway) means you’ll have to go hand over hand to turn sharply enough, thus not having your hands on the exact same spots through the turn and thus not able to press the right haptic feedback panel at that time.

See https://lemmy.ml/comment/7056795

Oh, I think I would hate that. Variable turning seems so bad for intuition to me.

*it’s

That’s barely enough time to finish the tutorial!

Hahaha, I don’t think you understand.

Your last sentence isn’t helping you any.

EDIT: Making it explicit; making derogatory remarks towards others does not make people seem less like a lunatic. And claiming that a group of people are downvoting you to make you look like a lunatic is itself more likely to make you look like a lunatic than if the group actually were downvoting you.

I think that one may have more than two edges XD

Interestingly enough, in old English you had “werman” and “wifman” for man and woman respectively, in which case referring to all with “mankind” makes perfect sense. So the originator for mankind seems more likely to be from that than the explanation that it’s a shortening of “humankind” to me.

Merriam-Webster would like to disagree with your assertion that it is not “non-gendered”

Thanks to @Mobilityfuture@lemmy.world for the link in https://lemmy.ml/comment/7077751 (I don’t know if I could make that link in a better way)

How cross does he have to be?