That’s one of the problems, for sure. First-past-the-post is a terrible voting system, and the electoral college is a mess. Unfortunately, I can’t blame those problems for the outcome of this election. Trump won decidedly–the larger percentage of American people want him, as unfortunate as that is.

That’s the problem–it wouldn’t matter. Trump isn’t the problem, the problem is a huge percentage of the country who wants to elect him. If it’s not him, it’ll be someone just as bad. Hell, I wouldn’t put it past people to vote Putin himself in.

I haven’t tried it on monsoon, so I can’t say. It’s possible–testing is the thing that bigger companies seem to like to cut corners on to save money and get things out faster, so it’s entirely possible. But at least it sounds like they’re taking the feedback to heart, so it could still end up pretty good with some rework.

That’s the thing–it’s more than bug fixing. They’re reworking a large amount of the content. I’ll probably pick it back up in a few months and see how it’s coming.

Seg fault

My other “dailies” include Rogule, Mazelle, and Hexcodle. Sometimes Decipher as well. Check them out!

Good to know which part of The Lorax we’re at.

As others have mentioned, there are no good BifL options. Based on what I gather from your post, your best option is probably getting 2nd hand devices and following behind by a few years. You can probably keep a 3-year-old device for 7 or 8 years (which is ages in the smartphone world), then “upgrade” to another 3-year-old device at that time.

For this, I’d recommend something popular like a Pixel. They have a number of options for alternative OSes (Graphene and LineageOS are both good options) and they’ve done well for me as long-term use phones.

I’ve bought my last couple phones on Swappa, and I’ve had no issues with any of them. Sold one on there too, and they’re pretty vigilant (they manually review posts before they can go public).

I’ve written code before in some hardware-specific languages before (I think it was for programming a stepper motor or something?) that used = for both assignment and comparison. If I recall correctly, the language was vaguely C-like, but assignment was not permitted in the context of a comparison. So something like if( a = (b+c) ) would not assign a value to a, it would just do the comparison.

Imagine saying these operators out loud.

> is “is greater than”

So it makes sense to use >= as “is greater than or equal to”

You’d think = would be “is equal to”, but it’s already used for “set equal to” (i.e., assignment).

So what symbol do we use for “is equal to”? The symbol used in many programming languages is ==, so Python chose to follow that convention.

It’s worth noting that there are other languages that use = as “is equal to”, and use something else for assignment (like := for example). It just comes down to the history of the language and what conventions the original authors decided to use.

I could probably find one for less than a dollar.

Maybe they mean the poster?

Flying or regular?

I’ve never been mauled by a mayo.

Only one of those will meet the tolerances.

Yeah, it’s about how electromagnetic energy travels through space.

If AB = i and BC = 0, then B would be in the same 2D space as C, but one of them would be “above” the other in 3D space (which doesn’t exist in this context, just as sqrt(-1) doesn’t exist in the traditional sense).

So this triangle represents a 2D object that is “standing up” on the page.

The short version is: we use some weird abstractions (i.e., ways of representing complex things) to do math and make sense of things.

The longer version:

Electromagnetic signals are how we transmit data wirelessly. Everything from radio, to wifi, to xrays, to visible light are all made up of electromagnetic signals.

Electromagnetic waves are made up of two components: the electrical part, and the magnetic part. We model them mathematically by multiplying one part (the magnetic part, I think) by the constant i, which is defined as sqrt(-1). These are called “complex numbers”, which means there is a “real” part and a “complex” (or “imaginary”) part. They are often modeled as the diagram OP posted, in that they operate at “right angles” to each other, and this makes a lot of the math make sense. In reality, the way the waves propegate through the air doesn’t look like that exactly, but it’s how we do the math.

It’s a bit like reading a description of a place, rather than seeing a photograph. Both can give you a mental image that approximates the real thing, but the description is more “abstract” in that the words themselves (i.e., squiggles on a page) don’t resemble the real thing.

This is pretty much the basis behind all math around electromagnetics (and probably other areas).

Root