Ah I see. I'm not sure that's technically possible, but if it were, that'd be great.
I think better would be simply outlawing any communication between a donor and recipient, if the donor wishes to officially remain anonymous. Not they "have no way" to prove their identity, but they're not allowed to prove it—or even imply it.
Me? My number one pick would have to be Not Just Bikes, but after that it gets hard to rank. Innuendo Studios, Lindsay Ellis, CityNerd, and Jet Lag have to be among the top ranked.
But to me that phrase kinda implies that the donor doesn't know who they donated to. Which…no. It should be blind to the recipient. Entirely blind. But people donating can still choose where to donate to.
I thought it was a rather simple analogue, but I guess it was too complicated for some?
I said nothing about JavaScript or Python or any other language with my 1/3 example. I wasn't even talking about binary. It was an example of something that might be problematic if you added numbers in an imprecise way in decimal, the same way binary floating point fails to accurately represent 1/10 + 1/5 from the OP.
A good way to think of it is to compare something similar in decimal. .1 and .2 are precise values in decimal, but can't be represented as perfectly in binary. 1/3 might be a pretty good similar-enough example. With a lack of precision, that might become 0.33333333, which when added in the expression 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 will give you 0.99999999, instead of the correct answer of 1.
It wasn't until watching this review that I realised they had changed Oswald's name to Cobb. I heard them say Cobb in the show, but thought it was just people being casual—using a shortening of the name as a nickname.
No irony, I didn't say straight because I didn't mean straight. I meant exactly what I said: you can get from one point to another without crossing a line. Because if you have to cross a line, you've either moved into a different shape (in the case of two adjoining shapes) or moves into empty space.
As it was presented in the OP, I don’t think it is a shape. If I get two squares and stick them next to each other so one side of each is touching, have I suddenly got one rectangle? Or do I still have two squares with a border between them?
Someone else posted an amended version with the internal lines removed. The equivalent of taking those two squares and removing the border between them, so you would have just one rectangle.
Uhh, no. A crescent is a classic concave shape, but you can travel from any point to any other in a crescent without crossing a line, because it’s a single enclosed shape.
Huh? Of course it is. A star is, so long as you don’t draw it out of two interlocking triangles, or construct it from 5 straight lines, and leave the internal parts of those lines intact. A crescent just…is. Unless you’re trying to claim the stars that sometimes appear with a crescent (e.g. on some Islamic country’s flags) are a part of the crescent itself.
Does this even meet the criteria for "a shape"? I'd have thought you need to be able to travel from any point within the shape to any other point, without crossing a line.
Anyone who votes for her is a fucking moron who is wilfully ignoring the reality of how FPTP voting works.
But they should still have that right. It's undemocratic to say otherwise. Saying they shouldn't be allowed to run just because you don't like the effect that voting for them might have is the mark of autocracy.
Apparently "democracy should be open" is a controversial take.
Or maybe my comment got downvoted for saying that those voting for her are morons?