That algorithm should come with a GLP-1 licensure.

Sigh. I'll bite.

The question seemed to assume it was a good question, and its premises were correct. They aren't. In fact, the CO2 DOES absorb incoming IR, and with the same cross-section, as it does outgoing IR. It doesn't "know which way the radiation is going."

Now, any honest thinker would realize that the question was silly, because it doesn't admit other mechanisms other than "blocking" [sic] of IR.

Think just a half-thought further, and question one of your assumptions. THEN you might have a point.

Correct.

Incorrect.

My mother's basement gets pr0nHub at 1080p minimum, you insensitive clod!

And they sneak in and swap out a memory card when you're not home?

"Industrial Revolutionar" now. Keep lopping off one letter....

Thanks for typing that out. Note that your answer can't be right, though.

Thank you for this comment. I learned a lot.

https://web.archive.org/web/20...

I.e. "It does."

cootys rat semen

Denotating it is exactly what the Bluetooth name does. *Detonating* it, on the other hand...

You realize that's the point, right?

I seem to have had a very similar progression. I still tend to think in "/." replacement operators, but it's been perhaps 15 years since I've really used Wolfram Language.

Do you really say "lol"?