thotsBgone

It's intuitive to me that the option "c) 2 ≤ i ≤ 12" is the only acceptable answer, since it is the only range you can tell immediately at a glance what numbers are included: 2, ..., 12. There shouldn't be a 1 or a 13 in the notation if there won't be a 1 or a 13 in the sequence it's describing -- it's just bad design.

If you select the option "c) 2 ≤ i ≤ 12", then Dijkstra's subsequent argument for zero-indexing becomes an argument for one-indexing, because a sequence of length N yields the range 1 <= i <= N when subscripting with 1, but 0 <= i <= N-1 when starting at 0. The latter is uglier than the former.

> It's not more morally reprehensible than <very reprehensible thing>.

A sense of humour didn't hurt.

Just kiss someone with better bacteria and you'll be fine.

I'm pretty sure that you either see the same thing as I do when you close your eyes, or you don't, and that it's very difficult to communicate about what "seeing" something in your mind actually means.

I have often thought something like this would work much better than those extensions which block websites outright. Sure, you can watch that youtube video, but you have to wait 10 seconds first.

Some of the species do not/did not exist as smaller versions, e.g. the three-toed ungulate with a trunk.

Even people with aphantasia see as a result of a combination of bottom-up and top-down processing.

Also note that aphantasia is not a condition which is confirmed to even exist.

Mouse over the title on the webpage

History is sexist: it's his story!

Unfortunately, the image was never displayed by the app that was downloading it as an internet test.

No comment about browser rss-feeds can be meaningfully harmful.