I was sure there was a reason, I just never worked in the field long enough to learn or ask why

Thanks 🫡

Or you work with gas cylinders.

I don’t understand this one, please Airgas

I like you.

I eat you last.

WHAT IS LEARNED CAN NEVER BE UNLEARNED.

THIS IS YOUR CURSE FOR USING THE FIRE PROMETHEUS STOLE FROM THE GODS.

It’s 10p EST and I’m still waiting for more 😔

BRING BACK THE FUCKING BUTTONS HOLY SHIT

Or get a black friend ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

You fucker :(

Praise be Cortana and IE’s reinstallation!

Said a simpler way:

1/3= 0.333…

1/3 + 1/3 = 0.666… = 0.333… + 0.333…

1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 1 = 0.333… + 0.333… + 0.333…

The quirk you mention about infinite decimals not incrementing properly can be seen by adding whole number fractions together.

Ain’t even gotta do that, just imagine he suffered for 500,000 years and he did, just like everyone and everything you ever knew was created last Thursday

Ha, tell that to my brain trying to recall what i learned in undergrad

!:'(!<

There’s more to transactions than the purchase of goods and services.

Donating money is a transaction. Using counterfeit money to donate while claiming it is legal tender makea the donation fraudulent.

Crawl back under your bridge, mate.

Actually it is inherently illegal. It’s fraud.

Because like the previous person said, they’re attempting to pass it off as legal tender by getting the homeless person the money so they’ll use it.

Yeah, not sure why folks care

I can sue discord and there’s nothing their EULA can do to stop me.

God bless our right to litigate*

*terms and conditions apply: enough money to win in a battle of attrition

Currently using blokada. Any reason to switch?

WE ARE EARTHICAN!

Yeah, nah, fuck water. I’m good

Samsung actually allows app cloning for multiple profiles without using secure folder.

I’m not sure if it’s a list of supported apps or any as I don’t use the feature

The ambiguity doesn’t lie in they, it lies in the way the writer constructed that sentence, as the person you responded to already stated.

The writer (and the person they are communicating with) knows the plurality of the “who”, an outside observer (us, the readers) aren’t privy to that information. Clarification on the part of the writer would provide that context. But the sentence isn’t written to be read to a 3rd party, but the other party (the person the writer is communicating with).

99.99% of people understand this intuitively, but this is the way you’d parse the understanding of that sentence.

And if you’ll note, in my second sentence, “they” is understood to be singular—the writer.

E: and for Shits n’ giggles: if neither party (the writer nor the person being communicated to) knows the plurality of the “who” they are referring to, then it’s irrelevant information. They will discover who wrote it when they go searching.

And if you’ll note, in that previous sentence, it’s understood that I am using the plural they (the writer and the person being communicated to) in both uses of the last sentence.