Those also look very similar to pokeweed. You probably had a pokeweed infestation.

Law of superposition. The timescale is in the order that you would find it digging down through ancient rock strata: youngest on top, older as you go down.

I would say the title is like the name of the ship, since the title can’t change without the URL changing.

“Ship of Theseus”? It’s in reference to a ship which was used to row out to Delos every year for a ritual, but it was very specific that it had to be the same boat that Theseus used. So, as the pieces broke and had to be replaced, eventually every original plank, nail and line would have been replaced. After all of those replacements, which occurred one at a time over decades, is it still the same boat? If you collected all of the old replaced bits of the original boat, then put them together into a boat, would that be the original ship? At what point does it stop being the “ship of Theseus”?

If you’re talking about History repeating itself, the joke is that the wikipedia page is, itself, now a ship of Theseus. It has the same URL (we call it the same thing), but none of the original remains. Is it still the same article?

Also kidnapped Helen of Sparta when she was prepubescent so that he, already in his later years, could groom her and forcibly wed her. Also left the person who gave him the thread, who betrayed her entire family to save him, on an island in the middle of nowhere —as far as he was aware, left to die— without even giving her the decency of a goodbye, according to some sources. And no, don’t come back at me with “Dionysus told him to do it in a dream”. First, not in all sources, and second, do you make it a habit of immediately doing whatever your drunken night terror tells you to do, as long as you dreamed it, when the life of your paramour is on the line?

No, fuck Theseus. Should have been left to rot with his ass glued to a chair in hell.

This is an AI slop Spam Bot. Every single post it has made in the last two hours stops in the middle of a sentence, with each comment being at best sycophancy, and at worst a total non-sequitur. Everyone should report this spam from an undeclared bot account.

Bold to assume the mint gives you a choice in whether you “keep” it.

*Royal Institution

Faraday’s lab was at the RI.

Only if your class has access to speak with dead, and you’ve chosen it as a spell known/prepared.

Definitely read the book. The book is about the existential elation at discovering a solution to a dire problem, so knowing a poorly-communicated version of every solution will likely ruin the book for anyone serious about the hard Sci-Fi.

You know shit’s fucked when The King In Yellow, the very manifestation of the idea that knowledge can kill, is having to defend the value of education.

Every day we stray further from god toward lost Carcosa

If you didn’t have plate tectonics, you’d have a lot of problems with the atmosphere, and there’s a decent chance that life wouldn’t evolve, as the energy differentials generated by tectonic activity are those which life hangs onto, from nutrients, to oxidation, to geothermal heat.

Sounds like you would enjoy either “The Hungry Gods” or “Children of Strife” by Adrian Tchaikovsky. If you choose to read Children of strife, you really need to read the first three Children of Time books first, though.

Ah, no, it’s that the more efficient packing takes up less space, so the less efficient square is actually slightly larger than the other, compared to the smaller squares.

If the smaller squares are identical in both sets, then the larger square in the less-efficient set will be slightly bigger than the larger square in the more efficient set.

Since a link to a wiki article does not an explanation make:

The optimal efficiency (zero interstitial space) is achieved when the ratio of the side length of the larger square to the sides of the shorter squares (let’s call it the “packing coefficient”) is precisely equal to the square root of the number of smaller squares. Hence why the case of n=25, with a packing coefficient of 5, is actually more efficient than the packing of n=17 given in the waffle iron, with a packing coefficient of 4.675. Since sqrt(25)=5, that case is a perfectly efficient packing, equivalent to the case of n=16 with coefficient of 4. Since sqrt(17)=4.123, the waffle packing (represented by the orangutan) above is not perfectly efficient, leaving interstices. However, the packing coefficient of the suboptimal solution (represented by the girl) is actually 4.707, slightly further from sqrt(17), and thus less efficient, leaving greater wasted interstitial space.

The united states has not been a society of laws since at least 2020, and anyone telling you otherwise is either blind, stupid, lying, or some combination of the three

(I count the supreme court overturning settled law and all branches of government abetting treason as the actual final point of breakdown of the rule of law in this country)

For the uninitiated: this is the current most-efficient method found of packing 17 unit squares inside another square. You may not like it, but this is what peak efficiency looks like.

(Of course, 16 squares has a packing coefficient of 4, compared to this arrangement’s 4.675, so this is just what peak efficiency looks like for 17 squares)

Edit: For the record, since this blew up, a tiny nitpick in my own explanation above: a smaller value of the packing coefficient is not actually what makes it more efficient (as it is simply the ratio of the larger square’s side to the sides of the smaller squares). The optimal efficiency (zero interstitial space) is achieved when the packing coefficient is precisely equal to the square root of the number of smaller squares. Hence why the case of n=25, with a packing coefficient of 5, is actually more efficient than this packing of n=17, with a packing coefficient of 4.675. Since sqrt(25)=5, that case is a perfectly efficient packing, equal to the case of n=16 with coefficient of 4. Since sqrt(17)=4.123, this packing above is not perfectly efficient, leaving interstices. Obviously. This also means that we may yet find a packing for n=17 with a packing coefficient closer to sqrt(17), which would be an interesting breakthrough, but more important are the questions “is it possible to prove that a given packing is the most efficient possible packing for that value of n” and “does there exist a general rule which produces the most efficient possible packing for any given value of n unit squares?”

“Wish granted. Electrons, being a human construct, have now always been defined slightly differently. Just as Franklin got the polarity wrong and you still use his labeling system, J.J. Thompson will now have fundamentally misunderstood the nature of the electron, leading to a cascading assumption by later scientists that the number of electrons in a neutral atom is one greater than the number of protons. Even though this completely breaks the math of quantum mechanics, everyone is just used to subtracting one at this point. This is a minutely worse world, but as a bonus, every physicist who sees you will now be preternaturally certain that you are personally to blame. You’re welcome.”

And, of course, “Delta P”:

https://youtu.be/AEtbFm_CjE0

(The first link I posted was a troll version of the video)

deleted by creator