Heh,

how about forcing LaLiga to show evidence about damages? Because surely everyone who pirated their content would have paid if free streams weren’t available, right guys???

Well, what problems are you trying to solve by having the classes all access each other’s data members? Why is that necessary?

That could work too, but for many people, being able to dodge/avoid hits is exclusively the DEX bonus to AC, and they believe it doesn’t have to do anything with hit points.

I’m on two minds about that: On the one hand, it’s true that you’re far better at dodging in lighter (or no) armor. OTOH, I agree with you that experience teaches you to decide where you’re going to get hit if at all. So it might be something like “raise your arm so the strike doesn’t hit your belly”.

I rationalize it as “You took some blows so now you have a better pain tolerance”.

Can you even kill something that’s already dead?

But you just completely ignored everything I said in that comment.

Mathematically, that is precisely how O notation works, only (as I’ve mentioned) we don’t use it like that to get meaningful results. Plus, when looking at time, we can actually use O notation like normal, since computers can indeed calculate something for infinity.

Still, you’re wrong saying that isn’t how it works in general, which is really easy to see if you look at the actual definition of O(g(n)).

Oh, and your computer crashing is a thing that could happen, sure, but that actually isn’t taken into account for runtime analysis, because it only happens with a certain chance. If it would happen after precisely three days every time, then you’d be correct and all algorithms would indeed have an upper bound for time too. However it doesn’t, so we can’t define that upper bound as there will always be calculations breaking it.

It’s very pedantic, but he does have a point. Similar to how you could view memory usage as O(1) regardless of the algorithm used, just because a computer doesn’t have infinite memory, so it’s always got an upper bound on that.

Only that’s not helpful at all when comparing algorithms, so we disregard that quirk and assume we’re working with infinite memory.

Wow, writing the same paragraphs three times… What an abomination of an article.

That may be true for smaller cities, but in bigger cities it becomes impossible, because there just isn’t enough space to house all the people near areas of interest. Cars don’t factor in there at all. Give me a subway for the major areas, and perhaps a tram or bus system so you don’t need that many subway stations in the residential areas, and you can have car-free city centers.

To be honest, I don’t really like it either, which might surprise you considering my last sentence. I just couldn’t resist making a small pun myself.

Got a laugh from me, but I did mean only the ‘a’, not the ‘ar’. I couldn’t think of any other English word with that sound unfortunately, do you have a better suggestion?

I don’t really like including pedestrians in there. Like sure, you can fit a bunch of people in a small area, but another point you shouldn’t ignore is the throughput over time, and pedestrians are by their nature rather slow. Obviously if you’re looking at shopping in a street lined by shops left and right, then that street becomes tailor-made for pedestrian traffic (and nothing else except perhaps bicycles). But public transport is much better suited for travelling any further distances, and that should be the main focus when deciding to ditch cars.

Try pronouncing the ‘a’ in pan like the ‘a’ in large, then you’ll end up with a rather well-done pun.

Late reply, but for me personally, I started doing it because my Keepass database is already accessed using two factors (password and key file). Therefore, I’d gain very little by keeping the second factor of those sites external - essentially, those second factors are compounded into the second factor for the database.

Funnily enough, in D&D 5E that wizard explicitly can cast that spell (if you’re equating Power Word Kill to Avada Kedavra)

I mean, it’s literally the second sentence in that article: Dragon Rider by Cornelia Funke

Wouldn’t 10d10 be something very different? Like, I can get a result of 43 with the commonly used definition of 10d10 (10 dice with 10 sides each), but I can only get multiples of 10 with the die in question.

Sorry, I mistakenly assumed you were talking about disk storage - sure, if you’re designing your own solution, definitely use tags! Although the ones Gmail uses aren’t really portable in my experience, so you’re forced to use their mail client. That, however, is pretty much unavoidable if you’re putting a new spin on established protocols like they’re doing - maybe those changes will get picked up by other clients, maybe they won’t, who knows?

That’s true, but since we’re stuck with the file/folder system for all intents and purposes, you should be able to replicate that behaviour by making those tags part of the filenames (like rent_lease_landlordX.pdf) and searching for (parts of) filenames instead. But yes, a dedicated system would of course be preferable.

Why not just use soft links instead?