What I typically do is leave in the no-name AAA alkaline batteries that the remote came with, and it works for a couple of years until I move on to newer gear.
Then after I've left it idle for 15 years, I'll come back and open the remote to discover that the batteries have leaked all over the inside and destroyed it.
To learn maths properly, you have to enjoy it, love it even.
Horseshit.
To learn maths properly - enough to do middle school math - you need to be taught it. You don't have to love it. You don't have to enjoy it, even. You just have to be taught.
Sure - it helps if you love it. But we're not talking calculus, here; we're talking algebra. Geometry. Not even trig. You don't need to love math to learn that.
If it was a reasonable balance of risk and payback, then they could get a private loan like everybody else.
... going to corporations. One billion dollars no less. Socialize the risk, privatize the profits.
Oh stop it. This is a loan to Constellation energy to help finance the cost to restart a nuclear power plant by 2027.
Why should he stop exactly explaining the situation?
Lenders take on the risk of a default, and when the government lends money, the risk is socialized.
The loan is being made to a private, for-profit corporation, who will be able to keep any profits generated by this scheme (however unlikely that may be).
Whatever activity the loan is for is irrelevant, whether it's for cranking up a crusty old nuclear power plant, or for bailing out a Wall Street firm during a market panic.
>But in a good model, esp. a thinking model, one
>would expect it to think over which sorts of
>numbers are statistically over-chosen (birthdates,
>etc) and avoid them in giving its answers.
and even then, it doesn't affect the chance of *winning*, but rather the chance of being the *sole* winner, as opposed to having to share the price.
[there *is* another possibility, though, albeit unlikely: it could come across a flaw in the RNG that lets it avoid less likely combinations, or choose a more likely one. Again, though, this requires an RNG flaw.]
just like when it hit three digits?
>Mexico has a half peso coin, worth about 2 cents.
and a peso was like a dollar.
I recall my aunt feeling guilty about what she was paying down there when it dropped to about eight to a dollar.
And then they lopped three zeroes off to get the new peso.
I *think* this is half of those one-thousands of the prior peso . . .
After extreme inflation, small matters of rounding aren't even on the radar for what's important.
[Let alone the 27 or so zeroes lopped off in Germany {where, near the end, workers were reportedly paid twice a day, with their wives bringing wheelbarrows to collect, and rushing to spend it before it fell further! (which may be an urban legend; I've never been able to confirm it, but it's not inconsistent with the daily inflation)}. Or Yugoslavia, which lopped off 30 digits . . . ]
[cloudtrack, err, flare, verification? *REALLY*]
And of further interest, I've never seen one in the US that was a round number of cents--they all end in 9/10 of a cent. (although in years past, 4/10 was also common)
Exactly how many suppliers does it take to supply an indicator bulb???
That's a trick question.
Answer: None. In 2025, Everything's Computer.
Omitting the camera saves the consumer the minor cost of having to use up a square inch of electrical tape.
Show me the how you can create a system where the price totals of all possible combinations of inventory selections result in only (3 or 4) mod 5.
So back then, prices were incremented by more than today's quarter.
People need to consider: Rounding to a nickle isn't going to be greater than 2 cents more inaccurate than rounding to pennies. Let's say you live in a backwater state, and still only make $7.25 per hour. Each transaction could potentially cost you at most 10 seconds of extra wages. However, transactions randomly round up and down, so the average error gets reduced by the square root of the number of transactions you make. Statistically speaking, you'll gain or lose only a couple of seconds of your time per purchase. Probably less time than it took to fumble for all those pennies.
But it sucks to be poor. Without pennies, someone who makes $50k per year will gain or lose only milliseconds worth of salary per transaction on average.
"But the stores will set prices so that it always rounds up!!!!1!" -- That only works for one item at most. Savvy shoppers would strategically buy combinations of items that always round down.
In a few years, all of these GPUs will be available on eBay for a few bucks each.
Then I'll finally be able to snag a whole bunch of them and build a Beowulf cluster to run SETI@home faster than anybody else.
Because someone still has to take time to read the slop. Over and over.
That work sounds like a great candidate to offload onto AI!
The merchants need to consider that if their competitor down the street still accepts rewards cards, the customers might just switch, and then they've just lost the whole sale. All this over a 1% extra cost to the merchant.
In the meantime, they think nothing of offering things like buy-one-get-one-free deals to lure in a few more customers.
The trouble with a lot of self-made men is that they worship their creator.
