Because so much depends on the income tax based on the tax year. We calculate our taxes based on our annual income. Our qualifications for government benefits (subsidized housing, food, healthcare, financial aid for universities) are keyed to our annual income, as reported on our taxes. Many programs, even for richer people, also look to income: tax credits for electric cars, specialized retirement accounts, etc.
And because lying on your taxes is a serious crime, many private banks and landlords use those annual figures as proof of income for loans, credit cards, long term leases, etc.
It just pervades how we think of money, on an annual basis.
It wouldn't be a 30% higher electrical bill overall. It would be 30% more for whatever power you're using for this specific device, which, if it's ordinarily 10W while in sleep and an average 100W while in use, and you use it 50 hours per week, or 215 hours per month, that's a baseline power usage of 21500 watt hours in use and 5050 watt hours from idle/sleep/suspend. Or a total of 26550 watt hours, or 26.5 kWh. At 20 cents per kWh, you're talking about $5.30 per month in electricity for the computer. A 30% increase would be an extra $1.60 per month.
Yeah, I end up trying to run to the cadence of music, and so I don't run to music.
Well you can always just put together a playlist of your preferred cadence for that particular workout. I'm usually a 180 steps per minute kind of runner, so I like 90 bpm songs.
Yeah I always thought that emojis were used most heavily by Gen Z. Millennials seem more likely to use abbreviations like "lol" and "lmao," and Gen X seems more likely to just type "haha." I don't know what boomers do, send audio clips of them laughing?
Raw garlic can overpower a dish. It's a lot harder to do with cooked garlic, though (unless you burn it, at which point it's not very pleasant in large quantities).
So I had my dick out, which was the style at the time. "Dicks out for Harambe," you'd say. Now, where were we? Oh yeah, I had my dick out, which was the style at the time. They didn't have any zippers then, because of the tariffs. The only thing you could get were those shitty button fly pants.
Not all kids are "climb into an animal enclosure at the zoo" dumb. That's a special kind of dumb.
Have you ever had to care for 3-year-olds? I'd argue that probably more than 80% of 3 year olds are "climb into an animal enclosure at the zoo" dumb. And honestly, for the 20% you don't have to worry about, it's not intelligence that keeps them out, it's other personality traits or physical abilities.
There's definitely room for more happy people in the mix. I try my best to inject humor and whimsy here and there, while above all else trying to stay engaged with the types of topics I'm interested in (explaining things I know, asking about things I don't know, and generally keeping topics alive if they're good topics I want to continue).
I generally delete my draft comments that come off as rude, before posting them, because I'm not sure this place needs more negativity.
The result is insane in my opinion, it means any sensible math system with basic arithmetic has a proposition that you cannot prove.
Stated more precisely, it has true propositions that you cannot prove to be true. Obviously it has false propositions that can't be proven, too, but that's not interesting.
Again, Goedel's theorem was in direct response to Russell and Whitehead spending literally decades trying to axiomize mathematics. Russell's proof that 1+1=2 was 300 pages long. It was non-trivial to disprove the idea that with enough formality and rigor all of mathematics could be defined and proven. Instead of the back and forth that had already taken place (Russell proposes an axiomatic system, critics show an error or incompleteness in it, Russell comes back and adds some more painstaking formality, critics come back and do it again), Goedel came along and smashed the whole thing by definitively proving that there's nothing Russell can do to revive the major project he had been working on (which had previously hit a major setback when Russell himself proved Russell's paradox).
how about:x = 22x = 3,000omg! they’re inconsistent!
You didn't define x, the equals sign, the digit 2, 3, or 0, or the convention that a real constant in front of a variable implies multiplication, or define a number base we're working in. So that statement proves nothing in itself.
And no matter how many examples of incomplete or contradictory systems you come up with, you haven't proven that all systems are either incomplete or contradictory. No matter how many times you bring out a new white swan, you haven't actually proven that all swans are white.
And formal logic and set theory may have seemed like masturbatory discipline with limited practical use, but it also laid the foundation for Alan Turing and what would become computer science, which indisputably turned into useful academic disciplines that changed the world.
It was a response to philosophers who were trying to come up with a robust axiomatic system for explaining math. Russell and Whitehead's Principia Mathematica attempted to formalize everything in math, and Goedel proved it was impossible.
So yes, it's a bit of a circlejerk, but it was a necessary one to break up another circlejerk.
Sauropods had hollow bones and air sacs all throughout for lightweight structural support. You can't just compare sizes and assume similar density as elephants or other large mammals.
Minor nitpick: he was Captain, not Chief.
And him trying to pass for straight was some of the funniest scenes in the show: