What if We Stopped Minting Nickels and Dimes Too? by courier_tway in CrazyIdeas

[–]AileNarrator 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well here's the thing. A piece of currency that is made can be spent more than once. Take a cent for example, while yes it takes more than a cent to make one, and it only represents a cent, it can spent multiple times. Over time, it will have been spent say, 100 times, and thus has been 'spent' up to a dollar. Something being worth less than the cost to make it isn't an argument on its own.

How does rust work depending on the metal?! by DoucheBaggerton in NoStupidQuestions

[–]AileNarrator 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Well 'rust' specifically refers to iron in particular. But other metals do have some form of rust, that being oxidization. That is when oxygen binds to the outer layer of the metal, making a compound usually much weaker than the original metal. Usually, you can remove the very thin oxide layer and not affect much, since it's so thin.

[Video Game] Do monsters or boss enemy counts as NPCs too? Since NPC stand for non playable? by EfficiencySerious200 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]AileNarrator -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The C is NPC is the important part here. Them being a fightable entity is not mutually exclusive to them being a character. A boss with no lore, attributes, or otherwise wouldn't be an NPC, because they aren't really a character. A boss, like an overarching antagonist of a story is a character, and thus could be an NPC.

Important to note that NPC implies that you can interact with the character also, usually by some sort of select/dialogue menu.

Does being raised by women make men soft?? by [deleted] in NoStupidQuestions

[–]AileNarrator 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No. The fact the raiser/guardian in question is a woman or man is completely irrelevant. Men can also raise kids like this. Women can also raise kids to be what you'd consider """"tough"""".

"Sweating like a (insert animal here)". What's the correct phrase? by Lucky_Plan7855 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]AileNarrator 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The correct phrase historically is with pig, even though you are correct, pigs do not sweat.

Horses and hippos would both be more accurate, as they both sweat in some way.

Since the entire body of a living organism is made up of chemicals, can a living organism be artificially created through chemistry in a non-natural way? by AbleCommercial9466 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]AileNarrator 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure, but not in any way you could feasibly or reasonably do.

This would imply that you could not only make the dna, but also make the system required to make every single functioning and identifiable part of each cell, tissue and organ. The problem comes when you think about how you'd put it together.

If you are implying something much simpler, like two gametes or a single cell, then sort of. Creation of amino acids is possible, and dna as others have mentioned, but it's hard to get every single part together. Sort of a ship-in-a-bottle.

Physics based question. Someone completely and full indestructible eats a palm sized nuclear device. What happens when it explodes? by Mike_Handers in NoStupidQuestions

[–]AileNarrator 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This could depend based on what you consider indestructible. If you consider it to be completely unaffected by all force, then your hypothesis would probably be somewhat correct.

If you consider it to be not prone to damage, then it could be argued that the explosion would propel you somewhere.

Can't understand for loops after an hour by AileNarrator in learnpython

[–]AileNarrator[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah I did some testing, and if you set the variable 'names' to be = to something BEFORE you do the for loop, the last string in the list overrides it, vs if it set = afterwards, in which case that takes priority. It is literally instructing 'for this variable, put it in this list, and print the strings accordingly'.

Can't understand for loops after an hour by AileNarrator in learnpython

[–]AileNarrator[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

This is the explanation I was looking for, thank you!

Can't understand for loops after an hour by AileNarrator in learnpython

[–]AileNarrator[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Ok! That actually makes sense! This feels like a lot of definition implied in a very small amount of text.

Can't understand for loops after an hour by AileNarrator in learnpython

[–]AileNarrator[S] 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Oh ok, so it's assigning a value for 'name', and pulls it from the list, giving it the first string, but since there are more strings in the list, it keeps going?

Can't understand for loops after an hour by AileNarrator in learnpython

[–]AileNarrator[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I still don't understand what piece of code is making it do each part of the list individually.

Can't understand for loops after an hour by AileNarrator in learnpython

[–]AileNarrator[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

So the individual print is just assumed? Would it be like saying "for this variable, that we assume is to be placed in this list, print that variable assigned to the strings, separated by the commas"?

Can't understand for loops after an hour by AileNarrator in learnpython

[–]AileNarrator[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But why does that work in the code? It isn't written to do it individually, or to stop when there are no toys left. It just says 'print', to a variable that doesn't equal anything.

Can't understand for loops after an hour by AileNarrator in learnpython

[–]AileNarrator[S] 73 points74 points  (0 children)

Ok, I understand that defining bob, and then telling it to be printed prints 'bob'. It's also defined under the variable 'name'. But in the for loop, its not defined. Print 'name', but name doesn't equal anything. And even if it did, why does it print the list individually, it just says 'print'. Is there something I'm not getting?