amanwithnoplan

> So there must be an equal number of them.

(Pretending to dig out my imaginary high school/freshman hat.)

If you said between every two reals there's one rational (and between every two rational there's one real), I'd assume you meant exactly one (i.e. in the conversational sense), and then there's an equal number of them. But you said at least one, so it could be two or three, so now I'm not sure. And if there are infinitely many of them... but infinity is not even a number, so who knows?!

Please kindly write one for a jj-specific issue: "my build vomitted out a bunch of files and I used any jj command before editing my .gitignore"

I've found myself using git to fix the mess in this particular instance.

I have no idea what "a military conflict between what would become Western Canada and what used to be Upper Canada" refers to unless you meant the northwest and Red River rebellions, in which case it really stretches my (anglo) mind how that has more to do with Quebec separatism than any of the other grievances.

Chinese characters being unsuitable for QWERTY typewriters and early computers' limitations didn't "almost kill character-based Chinese", it just meant Chinese computing lagged behind. Inputing Chinese characters with a limited key set wasn't even conceptually novel, given the long history of structural decomposition and phonetic representation of Chinese characters, but it just couldn't be implemented before computers were powerful enough.

I think "countably infinite" makes no sense to you because you have a different idea of countable than a mathematician (disclaimer: not a mathematician).

A mathematician compares the size of two sets of stuff by pairing off items from each set, but this is not a mechanical process taking a finite or even unbounded amount of time: they just need to show such a mapping exists or that nonexistence would lead to a contradiction; they don't need to actually carry out the process mechanically. By definition (according to mathematicians), something is countable if it is the same size as the set of natural numbers {0, 1, 2, ...} or smaller, and "countably infinite" just means it is the same size as the naturals (and not smaller, which would make it finite).

A small minority of mathematicians hold the position that proof-by-contradiction is not good enough, and that you really do need to positively prove something. They are called intuitionists.

Presumably, an even smaller minority of mathematicians hold the position that this proof must (theoretically) be able to be carried out in a mechanical manner. They're some flavor of constructivists, but maybe they're better called programmers. <- This is where you are.

What's wrong with just wrapping UTF-8 text in lang spans? Browsers and Electron will just do the right thing, no?

> if I have a good match where I did better than expected, the system responds to that by putting me in a much harder game, where I'm expected to lose

No, the system puts you in an easier/harder game, where you're expected to play _with and against_ people of your skill level (including if you want to play strictly meta or if you want to play with only one hand or whatever).

I've been playing one of the most popular (for PC anyway) online game for 10+ years now and it only has skill-based matchmaking, in both ranked and casual mode. While plenty of people rail against the fairness of its matchmaking, I've rarely heard anything against the concept of skill-based matchmaking. It's the only kind of matchmaking that makes any sense to me. Why would I want to play against people that are way better/worse than me where I have no chance to have a good game either way?

While my friends no longer play it regularly, when they used to play we'd just... play however we wanted in casual mode. Why does it matter if some people are better/worse or meta/casual? You can play the most random stuff you want and you eventually get matched against people of your skill level. Or if you don't enjoy the current match for whatever reason (winning/losing too much, or trying too much/little), just go next and let matchmaking do its thing until you get games at your level, wherever that level happens to be.

If anything, your complaints sound to me like the developers care too little (rather than too much) about competitive balance/integrity across the entire playerbase.

But why (+ 1 2 3) and not +(1 2 3) since the head is special? Or (1 2 3 +) so nested trees are built bottom up?

>someone outside of politics [...] holds the final red line about whether or not an election must be called

This seems like only a theoretical red line. If/when the GG does anything against the advice of the PM it's a crisis moment. There was a bit of a media fuss in 2008 but then the GG just did as she was told, no?