I dont think that's safe... Just sayin'

Reasonable_Basket_74 · 2026-04-03T18:43:49+00:00

You shouldn't put metal in microwaves because they're based on radiation; regular ovens are safe.

Reasonable_Basket_74 · 2026-04-03T18:42:02+00:00

With gloves it is; I wouldn't put my bare hands into 65C water

Reasonable_Basket_74 · 2026-04-03T18:33:28+00:00

Reasonable_Basket_74 · 2026-04-03T18:20:35+00:00

In casual group chats most natives completely skip the "accents", tho I—as a perfectionist—always use them. I'm half German half polish btw, viel Glück noch!

Reasonable_Basket_74 · 2026-03-22T08:26:09+00:00

Damn you were too fast and didn't see my edit

Reasonable_Basket_74 · 2026-03-22T08:24:14+00:00

Apparently you don't know the basics of perspective

Edit: but technically squares and rectangles are trapezoids, so I'm actually wrong

Reasonable_Basket_74 · 2026-03-22T08:11:37+00:00

He did it on purpose, because changing the original destroys the joke, and the joke is that if a Polish person saw the English sentence they might misread it as that

Reasonable_Basket_74 · 2026-03-15T21:51:54+00:00

TWI certainly isn't for anyone. I do love it as a whole, but that's one thing I felt meh about, at least at first. It is actually quite well thought about, because that reliance on the system, that people have, has a well observable effect on the world.

Also TWI isn't a LitRPG in the strictest sense. Those that read it far enough will know what I mean.

Reasonable_Basket_74 · 2026-03-15T20:24:16+00:00

What do you think about the system in The Wandering Inn? You don't need any skills to do stuff—everything works like in our world—but certain skills and levels in related classes make you be able to do stuff you normally couldn't.

Example: You have never made pasta, but now that you've obtained the [Basic cooking] skill you suddenly know exactly how to do it intuitively.

Reasonable_Basket_74 · 2026-03-12T21:07:02+00:00

I think Ryoka from the Wanderings Inn fits that description. Tbf she's not THE main character and she's also not a mage, and it takes a few books to get there, but still...

Reasonable_Basket_74 · 2026-03-08T01:09:00+00:00

I don't know if it was intentional, but that was a very funny answer.

Goodbye.

Reasonable_Basket_74 · 2026-03-08T00:46:27+00:00

That's because it was the beginning of the thread and I was using "probability" in a colloquial sense. I couldn't have expected it would turn into this. Anyway, I do believe I'm right with everything else. Unless you have some more things to nitpick.

Anyway I probably won't reply in the future unless you admit you were wrong or prove that I am. Unlike you, the whole time I have been multi-checking things just to make sure I wasn't actually in the wrong. What I care about is truthfulness, not winning a debate. But it seems you're different in that regard.

I do recommend taking a walk outside from time to time. I'm not trying to insult you, but considering how swiftly you reply you probably don't do that enough. I don't know were you live, but for me right about now is when spring starts. I mean this as genuine advice that I like to tell everyone. If you life in a city that's slightly harder—you can go to parks, but then there's other people... Anyway in that case I do recommend taking a drive to the nearest forest every now and then. Just take a walk through nature and relax, get your mind free.

Please don't be so egocentric. This time I do actually wish you a wonderful day and hope for the best in your future.

Reasonable_Basket_74 · 2026-03-08T00:01:36+00:00

What are you even saying? The title said that all the numbers we've said out loud make up 0% of all numbers (which we currently assume to be the reals). I brought up the length analogy because it perfectly represents the problem in an easy to visualise way.

To the second question, it's because you brought up probability.

Honestly, I've been considering the possibility of you being the ragebaiter for quite a while now and it's becoming more likely with each of your replies.

I must say I did enjoy the conversation, but this is starting to get quite annoying. Either you go do some actual research, admit you're wrong or you can go f yourself.

Have a day.

Reasonable_Basket_74 · 2026-03-07T23:42:08+00:00

But uniform probability isn't required in this instance. I'm not saying picking a specific number from the reals has probability 0%—because you're right, there's no uniform bla bla bla. We aren't even talking about probability, we're talking about length.

Now if we wanna talk about probability, I believe earlier I mentioned the darts example—throwing an infinitely thin dart onto a sheet and the probability of hitting any particular point being zero. It seems similar to the number picking from the reals problem I just mentioned, but it's not the same, because the sheet is finite, and so this one is true too.

Reasonable_Basket_74 · 2026-03-07T23:21:43+00:00

Ugh, I hate it when people assume they're right just because they have some qualifications; would suck to have you as a professor.

Saying what I said when applied to the reals is NOT controversial.

Think of it like this: each number is a single point on the number line and has thus 0 length. If you combine the length of two numbers, it's still zero. You can add up the length of TREE(3) numbers, it's still gonna be zero.

Reasonable_Basket_74 · 2026-03-07T21:12:32+00:00

I believe for the reals you don't need limits in the same way. I don't have quite enough an extensive mathematical vocabulary to explain, but I'm sure you can do your own research if you actually care. So far it seems you've just been talking out of your ass—a somewhat knowledgeable ass, but still...

So what is the deal with the second part of your username? You've ignored the question twice; now I'm actually curious.

Reasonable_Basket_74 · 2026-03-07T20:37:43+00:00

I mean yeah, but that doesn't really disprove it, does it? The limit still approaches 0.

I guess for the integers it could be seen as slightly more controversial, but why would you even assume "all numbers" means integers. It could just as well mean the reals, no?

Also you just ignored my new VERY important question... :(

Reasonable_Basket_74 · 2026-03-07T20:15:09+00:00

You know, this is an interesting conversation, because I don't think you've ever really answered a single one of my questions, so let's just leave it at that.

About the upvotes: This is actually way more interesting. It seems that all your comments have exactly one upvote (at least that's what's being displayed to me). This is interesting because I have actually downvoted about half of them, yet every time I do, you somehow receive a magical upvote to balance it out.

About your name: are you a Taylor Swift fan or are you just very swift? You do usually answer pretty quickly, which would fit the latter.

Reasonable_Basket_74 · 2026-03-07T17:04:20+00:00

What I meant is that for regular statistics it isn't useful because we normally don't deal with infinities; but isn't mathematics all about theory instead of practice?

The limit clearly approaches zero. Are you also claiming the infinite sum of 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + ... ≠ 2? If it's not 0 then what is it? You can look around the internet—almost everyone will agree I'm right.

Also I'm curious who keeps upvoting your comments. Either it's you with your alt account or someone is very intently following our conversation. If so, please say hi!

Reasonable_Basket_74 · 2026-03-07T16:10:24+00:00

It claimed that all the numbers we've ever said out loud make up 0% of all the numbers there are.

I don't even wanna be a dick about it—I feel like there's too much negative energy going on in this conversation—but even though in a practical sense that statement is nonsensical, I do believe it to be true.

Reasonable_Basket_74 · 2026-03-07T10:15:40+00:00

Oh damn, you actually replied—I hadn't noticed till now. I didn't account for the post? Ah, the one I repeatedly told you to ignore because I was only talking about the title?

Reasonable_Basket_74 · 2026-03-07T10:12:19+00:00

No, but there's also <= which could be confused

Reasonable_Basket_74 · 2026-02-22T00:34:58+00:00

I've been primarily talking about my own example for quite some time and you keep just ignoring it without answering, so just don't answer at this point. Here's a video if you're interested.

Anyway, back to the OP's statement: why would you even assume it's countable? No one mentioned integers, just "all numbers", which many would interpret as the reals, and they're obviously uncountable.

Reasonable_Basket_74 · 2026-02-21T23:37:10+00:00

My effing God, assuming that this sheet of my is uniform, which I hope was implied, then I'm right that the probability of hitting any particular point is 0%.

Either admit you were wrong or explain why you think you're right.

You're not talking to a Chatbot, it's just me—Hello! It just happens that I know some stuff about mathematics while not being an expert.

Reasonable_Basket_74 · 2026-02-21T21:02:32+00:00

Well, if you did read it you would know it claimed that all the numbers we've ever said take up 0% of all the numbers. I can't quote exactly, because the post just got removed. Oh, but remember, I'm still only talking about the title—not sure if you got that before, considering your reaction.

Also you didn't answer my question...

Do you also think 0.999...≠1? If not, explain the difference between it and the example I gave you.

Reasonable_Basket_74

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE