You have been seen to be unable to read up to second sentence in a single post, but I could successfully help you through some of your homework by putting small points at a time.

That will need me to use multiple sentences (!!!) and you won't reach the second onwards.

Have you ever thought what the A stands for in AGW ?

Described fully linked which second sentence I meant here, to which you replied with a white lie.

Nor had you read the post of mine you were replying to.

As a reply to my post about your conclusion from the study, your asking me about your conclusions from 3 different things in different words clearly shows you didn't read it properly.

However much you might want to pretend that "unrelated factors that I didn't bring up" can mean the study, it doesn't and you know it.

From your long reply to my this post it was clear that you didn't reach second sentence of the very same post to which you replied.

Since then, because of your utter inability to reach even the second sentence of a post, I have to reduce my posts to extremely simple ones.

Opportunities for violent crime are much much more in cities than in rural areas. Say e.g. one person lives completely alone - who would he commit a violent crime against? In a city of n people, opportunity of crime is nC2 i.e. n*(n-1)/2. But actual crime is much less than proportionate when compared to rural areas. Some crimes take more than 2 people, say m, - for them it should be nCm.

In that interpretation, it is true that cities have lower crime but just more people. Remember to divide crimes by nC2, not n.

I am pointing out your reply in context of my post. Do you think reply to a post should have some relation to it, or not?

I say

and you reply

So it is clear to anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together whose inability is causing what.

I agree with the argument of having limitless strings - KISS principle is followed in C correctly, but only because limitless strings are desirable.

It is not true that this is simpler than storing size separately. If storing size separately is a complication, inability to store \0 in a string is a limitation. We can work-around it by escaping, but then it adds complication, which was supposedly avoided by not storing size.

So it was a choice between 2 kinds of complications, one of the complications was chosen because limitless strings were more useful than the ability to store evere possible byte in a string. Not an unconditional KISS.

How much good exactly (in kilograms?) is "that much good"? And why does " that much good " matter?

It is a strength, and helps achieve one's purpose.

Ignorant people always suffer. Law of nature. They get suckered into eating bad, buying bad, into paying more for most things, electing bad representatives, visiting websites which are out to screw the users.

Knowledge is the solution to many of these problems. Including this particular one.

Did you discover this just now?