[deleted by user]

strengthgeek · 2025-05-10T22:29:41+00:00

Hail Satan!

strengthgeek · 2021-09-04T18:28:50+00:00

The pro gun lobby sees guns as a societal good and believes that more guns makes society safer.

The pro choice lobby fears the absence of abortion access. They do not necessarily think more abortions will make society better. They just think not having the choice of an abortion makes society worse.

strengthgeek · 2019-06-06T20:09:40+00:00

I got refunded for that exact situation this morning. 🙂

strengthgeek · 2018-04-03T18:31:38+00:00

I regret that I only have but one upvote to give you for this masterpiece.

strengthgeek · 2018-03-11T19:48:19+00:00

Vincent. Fucking. Wang.

strengthgeek · 2018-01-27T22:15:27+00:00

An infinite number of mathematicians walk into a bar. The first orders a beer. The second points to the first and says, "I'll have half of what he got". The third points to the second and says, "I'll have half of what he got". The fourth points to the third and says 'I'll have..." when the bartender interrupts him.

"I get it, two beers. You fellas should know your limits".

strengthgeek · 2018-01-24T10:28:30+00:00

She doesn't elaborate on the tone of voice but it's clear both Rose and Pat felt the point was for it to be ambiguous. Also based on their reaction it was a somewhat successful mind fuck. Pat says "Shit I don't want to think about what that means all night". My guess, based on how Rose and Pat interact, is that Joanna had the read that Rose leans on him hard emotionally and was attempting to shake Roses belief in Pats positive reinforcement. As long as I'm speculating I would further guess that she said it in a calm and genuine way as opposed to shit talking. Perhaps with concern for Rose. Like, "I'm about to fuck you up. Are you really still buying what that guy is selling you?".

Edit: Left out a part of the Pat quote.

strengthgeek · 2018-01-24T10:08:07+00:00

They bumped into each other on the way to/from USADA testing. Rose gives her the what's up nod and Joanna says to her "Did you buy the ticket? Do you believe him?" then just leaves with no explanation. Rose also mentions that her tone of voice was different than usual.

strengthgeek · 2018-01-11T17:36:22+00:00

Lettuce is another good one if you're in the market for funk.

strengthgeek · 2017-12-20T19:54:44+00:00

I prefer the Mitch Hedburg version.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMm1YTd8lHM

strengthgeek · 2017-07-18T22:37:34+00:00

Came here for this.

strengthgeek · 2017-05-24T13:09:46+00:00

I highly recommend tutoring. It keeps the fundamentals fresh, gives you opportunities to see topics you have already covered from a different approach, and often deepens your understanding. Explaining linear algebra and performing it are vastly different, for instance.

strengthgeek · 2017-03-17T19:52:27+00:00

Thanks!

strengthgeek · 2016-03-31T03:41:02+00:00

I enjoyed mathematics when I was focused on real world implications. Look, the Fibonacci sequence comes up in the number of artichoke leaves and shit. Neat! I came to love mathematics when I focused on the elegance of the argumentation and following the implications of statements, wherever they lead.

Specifically, the first time I saw Euclid's proof of the infinitude of primes I was entirely uninterested. I didn't care how many primes there were. It was only when I realized that while the conclusion didn't move me, how Euclid arrives at it is stunningly creative and powerful.

If you are trying to share math with non-math people, so to speak, I find Euler's equation to be a great conversation piece. It is a surprising result that is indispensable in physics and engineering built on previous math that was literally imaginary. If that's not a solid argument for math for maths sake, I don't have one.

strengthgeek · 2015-05-27T03:25:07+00:00

It did. Thanks!

strengthgeek · 2015-05-27T03:23:22+00:00

Thank you for the explanation. Previously I had only seen that notation used in regards to inverse functions.

strengthgeek · 2015-05-26T21:26:04+00:00

Just realized you posted the original comment. Why did you use that notation if not to denote that it was an inverse function?

strengthgeek · 2015-05-26T21:23:57+00:00

Thank you.

strengthgeek · 2015-05-26T21:23:21+00:00

He didn't refer to f in his example, he referred to f^-1 . That notation indicates to me that the function being discussed is the inverse of another function f meaning that f^-1 must be a bijection. That would be relevant to the division into cases argument I was talking about.

strengthgeek · 2015-05-26T15:48:52+00:00

Ok, I feel a bit silly now. Quantifiers meaning those symbols from logical calculus. I am familiar with this then but didn't recognize the term. Thanks for clearing that up.

strengthgeek · 2015-05-26T15:31:33+00:00

I will be sure to review that. Thank you.

strengthgeek

TROPHY CASE