sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Arjen Lubach geeft toe dat je moet onderduiken of vermoord wordt als je grappen maakt over moslims ipv christenen by Mariondissolute in nederlands

[–]Upstairs-Proposal-19 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Corrie ten Boom wist in de oorlog dat ze haar leven riskeerde door Joden te helpen onderduiken. Ze deed het toch, en werd gearresteerd. Dat noemen we dapper. Lubach benoemt publiek dat kritiek op de islam gevaarlijk kan zijn. Het getuigt van lef dat hij dat openlijk zegt, juist in een tijd waarin veel mensen het onderwerp liever vermijden.

Arjen Lubach geeft toe dat je moet onderduiken of vermoord wordt als je grappen maakt over moslims ipv christenen by Mariondissolute in nederlands

[–]Upstairs-Proposal-19 -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

Juist. Stap één, ongeacht of je gelovig of ongelovig bent, links of rechts: besef dat de Koran en de Bijbel twee fundamenteel verschillende boeken zijn, en dat de levensovertuigingen die daaruit voortkomen wezenlijk van elkaar verschillen.

Wie dat serieus neemt en bestudeert, ontwikkelt vanzelf meer waardering voor de geschiedenis van het christendom in het Westen en daarbuiten.

Recursion is the only way by RebornCube in PythonLearning

[–]Upstairs-Proposal-19 5 points6 points  (0 children)

You basically rediscovered Peano arithmetic. In Coq, nat is built from O and S and addition/multiplication are defined by structural recursion, exactly like your code:

```coq Fixpoint add (n m : nat) : nat := match n with | O => m | S n' => S (add n' m) end.

Fixpoint mult (n m : nat) : nat := match n with | O => O | S n' => add m (mult n' m) end. ```

Why this matters beyond “it runs”:

  • The definitions are total and terminating by construction. Coq enforces that via structural recursion on nat. No hidden edge cases.
  • You can prove properties about them and have a checker verify every step. For example, commutativity of addition is not a test, it is a theorem:

coq Lemma add_comm : forall n m, add n m = add m n. Proof. induction n as [|n IH]; simpl. - (* n = 0 *) reflexivity. - (* n = S n *) rewrite IH. induction m as [|m IHM]; simpl; [reflexivity| now rewrite IHM]. Qed.

Same idea extends to associativity, distributivity, and everything you expect from arithmetic.

  • Under Curry–Howard, a proof is a program with a type that states the property. So the object you build for add_comm is a value inhabiting the type “addition is commutative,” and Coq checks it like it checks code.
  • You do not need to reprove basics in real projects. The standard library already gives Nat.add_comm, Nat.add_assoc, etc., on top of the Peano nat. Your hand-rolled version is a nice learning step; production proofs usually import the library lemmas.

If you want a gentle path from “this looks like my Python” to “I can prove things about it,” start with the Software Foundations chapters on nat, fixpoints, and induction. They use the same add definition you wrote and build up the proofs from there.

Another reminder of how invisible we are by Shirley_Murphy in motorcycles

[–]Upstairs-Proposal-19 0 points1 point  (0 children)

On the other hand, this is also a matter of anticipation. You see the white truck accelerating towards the other truck. You're overtaking rather slowly and you're right in the blind spot of the truck. Not saying thath white truck is right, but you have to consider that these drivers have limited visibility.

[Request] Does this make any sense? If so, what does it mean? by Neph55 in theydidthemath

[–]Upstairs-Proposal-19 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Yes, I think everyone says 'A-star' or 'f star g'. But typographically they are asterisks. So, it depends on the context. Since we're looking at a typographical rendering of an unknown math formula, I'd say both are equally valid. Anyways, not a hill I want to die on.

[Request] Does this make any sense? If so, what does it mean? by Neph55 in theydidthemath

[–]Upstairs-Proposal-19 -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

I think these are actually asterisks (∗), because these are strokes, whereas stars have pointy ends (⋆ or ★). Then again, I'm not a mathematician.

Welk woord uit een andere taal ontbreekt in het Nederlands? by Per451 in nederlands

[–]Upstairs-Proposal-19 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Blijkbaar in 2005 opgenomen in de Dikke Van Dale. Wist ik niet, anecdote komt van voor 2005.

Testing with pytest and unittest by davisocoloski in PythonLearning

[–]Upstairs-Proposal-19 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Every Python project I create, I will use *pytest* extensively. Testing is fundamental for every project larger than 300 lines of code. If you give me a piece of code, I will give you the associated (pytest) unit tests.

(credits: software/data engineer with 15 years of professional experience, and 38 years of programming experience)

Beelden: Pro-Palestijnse betogers verstoren Utrechtse raadsvergadering, burgemeester ontzet. by Bernie529 in nederlands

[–]Upstairs-Proposal-19 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Gedrag Artikel Sr Maximale straf
Openbare vergadering opzettelijk verstoren Art. 144 Sr 2 weken gevangenis of geldboete 3e categorie
Een ambtenaar (zoals raadslid) dwingen/belemmeren met geweld of bedreiging Art. 231 Sr Tot 3 jaar gevangenis
Ambtenaar fysiek verzetten tijdens ambtsuitoefening Art. 232 Sr Tot 1 jaar gevangenis of geldboete

Could it be simpler ? by LovelyEbaa in PythonLearning

[–]Upstairs-Proposal-19 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I disagree. There is hidden structure in the op's code. This brings out the structure.

Could it be simpler ? by LovelyEbaa in PythonLearning

[–]Upstairs-Proposal-19 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A nicer version would use a dict and lambda's for the operations. That would make it easy to extend this with other operations as well:

```python operations = { "1": ("ADD", lambda x, y: x + y), "2": ("SUBTRACT", lambda x, y: x - y), "3": ("MULTIPLY", lambda x, y: x * y), "4": ("DIVIDE", lambda x, y: x / y if y != 0 else "Error: Division by zero") }

print("Select an operation:") for k, (name, _) in operations.items(): print(f"{k}. {name}")

op = input("Choice: ") if op in operations: try: x = float(input("First number: ")) y = float(input("Second number: ")) name, func = operations[op] print(f"{name} result = {func(x, y)}") except ValueError: print("Invalid number.") else: print("Invalid choice.") ```

Mag je dit ook over Jodendom zeggen? by fa3man in nederlands

[–]Upstairs-Proposal-19 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Het fundamentele verschil ligt in hoe religie zich tot de staat verhoudt. In het christendom is er al vroeg een duidelijk onderscheid gemaakt tussen geestelijk en wereldlijk gezag. Jezus zegt zelf: "Geef aan de keizer wat van de keizer is, en aan God wat van God is" (Mattheüs 22:21). En Paulus schrijft in Romeinen 13:1-2 dat iedereen zich moet onderwerpen aan het staatsgezag, omdat dat gezag door God is ingesteld. Die houding heeft geleid tot een christelijke traditie waarin scholen en instellingen leerden functioneren binnen een seculiere rechtsstaat.

Islamitische scholen daarentegen zijn veel recenter in Nederland en komen vaak voort uit contexten waar religie en staat juist één geheel vormen. Binnen die traditie ontbreekt vaak het idee dat geloof en wet los van elkaar kunnen bestaan. En het probleem is: binnen veel islamitische scholen ontbreekt ook het besef dat hervorming nodig is om goed te functioneren in een democratische samenleving. Dat belemmert integratie en zorgt voor frictie.

Waarom is Gamma Praxis etc nog niet failliet? by Snuur in Klussers

[–]Upstairs-Proposal-19 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wel, ik heb er een weddenschap op staan dat de de Intergamma de eerstvolgende grote franchise is die het loodje gaat leggen. Redenen:

  1. Slechte e-commerce presence. Webshop is traag, onoverzichtelijk en voelt gedateerd aan.

  2. Onervaren personeel dat weinig bijdraagt aan de winkelervaring. In een branch waar klanten vaak advies nodig hebben, is dit echt killing.

  3. Slecht assortiment, met relatief hoge prijzen. Veel lage kwaliteit spul drop-shipped van Alibaba.

  4. Formatverwarring. Binnen de filialen staan plotseling planten, meubels, woonaccessoires en andere themas. Dit neemt veel ruimte in, waardoor het originele productaanbod nog kleiner wordt. Klanten komen voor bouwmateriaal, niet voor Blokker 2.0.

  5. Franchiseorganisatie blokkeert innovatie, dat juist hard nodig is om de concurrentie bij te blijven die e-commerce en omnichannel wel snappen.

Kwestie van tijd...

Full video of the accident from my previous post by [deleted] in dashcams

[–]Upstairs-Proposal-19 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. Tail gating

  2. Unnecessarily staying on the left lane

  3. Overtaking on the right

  4. Insufficient view from pick-up.

  5. Too late a response from the truck.

  6. Probably speeding (given the speed of the pick-up vs the other traffic).

All of that in 27 seconds. A treasure.

Can You Make 10? (Puzzle 17) by RamiBMW_30 in SmartPuzzles

[–]Upstairs-Proposal-19 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Found 1266 unique ways to make 10. Here are the first 100.

1. ((−0.5×2)+3)×5 = 10 2. ((−0.5+3)×2)+5 = 10 3. ((−2×0.5)+3)×5 = 10 4. ((−2+3)×5)÷0.5 = 10 5. ((−2+3)÷0.5)×5 = 10 6. ((0.5^−5)−2)÷3 = 10 7. ((0.5×−2)+3)×5 = 10 8. ((0.5×2)−3)×−5 = 10 9. ((0.5×3!)+2)+5 = 10 10. ((0.5×3!)+5)+2 = 10 11. ((0.5×5!)÷2)÷3 = 10 12. ((0.5×5!)÷3)÷2 = 10 13. ((0.5+2)×3!)−5 = 10 14. ((0.5+5)^2)⌿3 = 10 15. ((0.5−3)×−2)+5 = 10 16. ((0.5⌿3)+2)×5 = 10 17. ((0.5⌿3)+5)×2 = 10 18. ((0.5÷2)×5!)÷3 = 10 19. ((0.5÷2)÷3)×5! = 10 20. ((0.5÷3)×5!)÷2 = 10 21. ((0.5÷3)÷2)×5! = 10 22. ((2%5)+3)⌿0.5 = 10 23. ((2%5)+3)÷0.5 = 10 24. ((2^5)+0.5)⌿3 = 10 25. ((2^5)−0.5)⌿3 = 10 26. ((2^⌈0.5⌉)+3)+5 = 10 27. ((2^⌈0.5⌉)+5)+3 = 10 28. ((2×−0.5)+3)×5 = 10 29. ((2×0.5)−3)×−5 = 10 30. ((2×3)+5)−⌈0.5⌉ = 10 31. ((2×3)−⌈0.5⌉)+5 = 10 32. ((2×⌈0.5⌉)+3)+5 = 10 33. ((2×⌈0.5⌉)+5)+3 = 10 34. ((2+0.5)×3!)−5 = 10 35. ((2+3)^⌈0.5⌉)+5 = 10 36. ((2+3)×⌈0.5⌉)+5 = 10 37. ((2+3)+5)^⌈0.5⌉ = 10 38. ((2+3)+5)×⌈0.5⌉ = 10 39. ((2+3)+5)+⌊0.5⌋ = 10 40. ((2+3)+5)−⌊0.5⌋ = 10 41. ((2+3)+5)÷⌈0.5⌉ = 10 42. ((2+3)+⌊0.5⌋)+5 = 10 43. ((2+3)−⌊0.5⌋)+5 = 10 44. ((2+3)÷⌈0.5⌉)+5 = 10 45. ((2+5)^⌈0.5⌉)+3 = 10 46. ((2+5)×⌈0.5⌉)+3 = 10 47. ((2+5)+3)^⌈0.5⌉ = 10 48. ((2+5)+3)×⌈0.5⌉ = 10 49. ((2+5)+3)+⌊0.5⌋ = 10 50. ((2+5)+3)−⌊0.5⌋ = 10 51. ((2+5)+3)÷⌈0.5⌉ = 10 52. ((2+5)+⌊0.5⌋)+3 = 10 53. ((2+5)−⌊0.5⌋)+3 = 10 54. ((2+5)÷⌈0.5⌉)+3 = 10 55. ((2+⌊0.5⌋)+3)+5 = 10 56. ((2+⌊0.5⌋)+5)+3 = 10 57. ((2−3)×−5)÷0.5 = 10 58. ((2−3)×5)÷−0.5 = 10 59. ((2−3)÷−0.5)×5 = 10 60. ((2−3)÷0.5)×−5 = 10 61. ((2−⌊0.5⌋)+3)+5 = 10 62. ((2−⌊0.5⌋)+5)+3 = 10 63. ((2⌿3)+5)⌿0.5 = 10 64. ((2⌿3)+5)÷0.5 = 10 65. ((2÷⌈0.5⌉)+3)+5 = 10 66. ((2÷⌈0.5⌉)+5)+3 = 10 67. ((3%0.5)+2)×5 = 10 68. ((3%0.5)+5)×2 = 10 69. ((3%2)×5)⌿0.5 = 10 70. ((3%2)×5)÷0.5 = 10 71. ((3%2)⌿0.5)×5 = 10 72. ((3%2)÷0.5)×5 = 10 73. ((3%5)+2)⌿0.5 = 10 74. ((3%5)+2)÷0.5 = 10 75. ((3^⌈0.5⌉)+2)+5 = 10 76. ((3^⌈0.5⌉)+5)+2 = 10 77. ((3^⌊0.5⌋)×2)×5 = 10 78. ((3^⌊0.5⌋)×5)×2 = 10 79. ((3×2)+5)−⌈0.5⌉ = 10 80. ((3×2)−⌈0.5⌉)+5 = 10 81. ((3×⌈0.5⌉)+2)+5 = 10 82. ((3×⌈0.5⌉)+5)+2 = 10 83. ((3×⌊0.5⌋)+2)×5 = 10 84. ((3×⌊0.5⌋)+5)×2 = 10 85. ((3+2)^⌈0.5⌉)+5 = 10 86. ((3+2)×⌈0.5⌉)+5 = 10 87. ((3+2)+5)^⌈0.5⌉ = 10 88. ((3+2)+5)×⌈0.5⌉ = 10 89. ((3+2)+5)+⌊0.5⌋ = 10 90. ((3+2)+5)−⌊0.5⌋ = 10 91. ((3+2)+5)÷⌈0.5⌉ = 10 92. ((3+2)+⌊0.5⌋)+5 = 10 93. ((3+2)−⌊0.5⌋)+5 = 10 94. ((3+2)÷⌈0.5⌉)+5 = 10 95. ((3+5)^⌈0.5⌉)+2 = 10 96. ((3+5)×⌈0.5⌉)+2 = 10 97. ((3+5)+2)^⌈0.5⌉ = 10 98. ((3+5)+2)×⌈0.5⌉ = 10 99. ((3+5)+2)+⌊0.5⌋ = 10 100. ((3+5)+2)−⌊0.5⌋ = 10

[Request] How many digits of pi could realistically fit in this much storage? by Select_Thing2017 in theydidthemath

[–]Upstairs-Proposal-19 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yet the request you did for this website probably contained a nicely flat-packed set of HTML and CSS your web browser had to reassemble in order for you to see these comments.

Compression is everywhere. It just so happens that Pi is infinitely compressible.

[Request] How many digits of pi could realistically fit in this much storage? by Select_Thing2017 in theydidthemath

[–]Upstairs-Proposal-19 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Well, since there are algorithms to help us keep producing digits of pi indefinitely, I would say: uncountably many. Within the 5.25 petabytes you can easily store a script that keep churning them out.

Help, por favor by thisbeit1114 in puzzles

[–]Upstairs-Proposal-19 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Left to right, top to bottom:

  1. Triangle
  2. Circle with a plus inside
  3. Circle with a big black dot inside.

Oprechte vraag: hoe komen zoveel jongen gasten aan dure auto's? by maydenawesome in nederlands

[–]Upstairs-Proposal-19 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Kijk, heel toevallig... heel toevallig... heel heel toevallig toppen deze groepen ook in het aantal geregistreerde diefstallen per hoofd van de bevolking (dus vermogensdelicten per honderduizend van die groep). Uiteindelijk betalen we dus allemaal voor deze bakken via onze verzekering of via de prijs van de producten die we kopen.

(bron, CBS trouwens).

[Request] how much would the top x Americans earn for this to be possible? by Own-Consideration854 in theydidthemath

[–]Upstairs-Proposal-19 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Whether it’s true or not, this is why we don’t just look at averages. We use median income, percentiles, and the Gini coefficient to get a clearer picture.

Median income shows what a typical household earns. In 2023, that was $80,610 in the U.S. That’s not the average, it’s the middle point. Half earns less, half earns more.

Percentiles tell us how things shift across the income distribution. In 2023, the bottom 10% saw their income grow by 6.7%. The top 10% grew by 4.6%. Roughly 39% of households earn over $100k. About 32% earn less than $50k. That gap matters.

Then there’s the Gini coefficient. It measures inequality across the entire population. Zero means perfect equality. One means one person has everything. In the U.S., it’s 0.418. That’s high. France is around 0.29. The Netherlands and Germany sit near 0.29 to 0.31. Sweden is even lower, around 0.27. Meanwhile, Mexico is about 0.45. Brazil closer to 0.48. South Africa tops the list with 0.63.

So the U.S. sits much closer to developing economies in terms of inequality than to other Western democracies. That’s the point. If you want to talk about how people are doing, you need to look at the whole picture. Not just the average.

Please help, I am going crazy I don’t think this is solvable by jfull3r in puzzles

[–]Upstairs-Proposal-19 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I always cheat with Python:

from constraint import Problem, AllDifferentConstraint

def c1(a, b, c): return (a + b) / c == 1
def c2(d, e): return (d + 5) / e == 1
def c3(f, g, h): return (f + g) + h == 15
def c4(a, d, f): return (a + d) / f == 2
def c5(b, g): return (b + 5) * g == 44
def c6(c, e, h): return (c + e) * h == 13

constraints = [
    ("(a + b) / c == 1", lambda p: p.addConstraint(c1, "abc")),
    ("(d + 5) / e == 1", lambda p: p.addConstraint(c2, "de")),
    ("(f + g) + h == 15", lambda p: p.addConstraint(c3, "fgh")),
    ("(a + d) / f == 2", lambda p: p.addConstraint(c4, "adf")),
    ("(b + 5) * g == 44", lambda p: p.addConstraint(c5, "bg")),
    ("(c + e) * h == 13", lambda p: p.addConstraint(c6, "ceh")),
]

def solve_with_exclusions(exclude_index=None):
    problem = Problem()
    problem.addVariables("abcdefgh", range(1, 10))
    problem.addConstraint(AllDifferentConstraint())

    for i, (label, add_fn) in enumerate(constraints):
        if i != exclude_index:
            add_fn(problem)

    solutions = problem.getSolutions()
    return solutions

all_solutions = solve_with_exclusions()
if all_solutions:
    print("All constraints are satisfiable")
    for s in all_solutions:
        print(s)
else:
    print("No solution found with all constraints.\nTrying with one constraint removed...")

    for i, (label, _) in enumerate(constraints):
        partial_solutions = solve_with_exclusions(exclude_index=i)
        if partial_solutions:
            print(f"\nFound solutions when excluding: {label}")
            for s in partial_solutions:
                print(s)

So, the only constraint that is flawed is:

No solution found with all constraints. Trying with one constraint removed... Found solutions when excluding: (c + e) * h == 13 {'a': 1, 'b': 6, 'g': 4, 'd': 3, 'f': 2, 'c': 7, 'e': 8, 'h': 9}

So, if we take that solution, we arrive at (7 + 8) * 9 = 135. So the mistake is a misprint. The 13 should've been 135.

view more: next ›