https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_by_zero#Floating-point_arithmetic

In IEEE arithmetic, division of 0/0 or ∞/∞ results in NaN, but otherwise division always produces a well-defined result. Dividing any non-zero number by positive zero (+0) results in an infinity of the same sign as the dividend. Dividing any non-zero number by negative zero (−0) results in an infinity of the opposite sign as the dividend. This definition preserves the sign of the result in case of arithmetic underflow.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_by_zero#Floating-point_arithmetic

In IEEE arithmetic, division of 0/0 or ∞/∞ results in NaN, but otherwise division always produces a well-defined result. Dividing any non-zero number by positive zero (+0) results in an infinity of the same sign as the dividend. Dividing any non-zero number by negative zero (−0) results in an infinity of the opposite sign as the dividend. This definition preserves the sign of the result in case of arithmetic underflow.

Philosophy needs a better PR department

You can’t have 20 cleaners come in for an hour

quitter talk

AFAIK that should give you +infinity, not NaN

I don’t think so either but I hear some people do. Apparently, if it’s genuine olive oil and not a phony then it tastes sublime. Haven’t tried it though.

Heard all of this from a YouTube/Nebula video though so take it with a grain of salt. Wait no, that might ruin the taste…

Edit: found the video on Nebula and on YouTube - Your Olive Oil is (probably) a Lie

I think olives are gross but I like them anyway. Only green olives though - black tastes bad.

You seem confused, here are Mitchell and Webb to explain: https://youtube.com/watch?v=vB9JgxhXW5w

(jk of course)

Not quite what you asked for but here: https://xkcd.com/1531/

Ah, so the answer must be no.

Right you are! So, how does this help us answer the question?

P.S. Sometimes I wonder how many people on here actually believe that human value is inversely proportional to wealth with no other factors. Repeat it enough times, even as a joke or hyperbole, and you start to believe it.

From my understanding, no. Source: SciShow on YouTube

Depends on a lot of things. If medicine like paracetamol can make you suffer less with little to no downsides, there’s no reason to avoid it. But other than that, I’m also in the same camp of letting the body do its work. Definitely things like antibiotics are more trouble than they’re worth in most cases.

Maybe it’s wrong, but do you think everyone in the world should know this? Though fwiw I don’t think gender-fluid is (or should be) used as a generic term for the others, the others feel more generic. I just wouldn’t think it comes from disrespect if someone does.

This is firmly in the realm of semantic definition that most people don’t need to know IMO, definitely not in casual conversation. Like the precise botanical definition of a nut, ‘true crabs’ vs other kinds of crabs, and other such specialised definitions in various fields of study. For everyday discussion, broad labels are fine. Non-binary, agender, gender-fluid and maybe more that I’m ignorant of can all kinda be used interchangeably in most contexts and I think there’s nothing disrespectful in that. Expecting more is expecting too much.

If talking with one’s therapist about it or in circles where this is a main topic of discussion, yeah precise terms are useful, but outside of that it’s fine to mix them up.

I just felt this needed to be said. I’m absolutely in favour of people like you chiming in with the definition though, in the right context like here.

Oh, and I think the game bugged out. It does sometimes fail to generate a valid solvable board but I don’t think it happened that time because it would show a toast message and I don’t think I missed it. It didn’t show up in the toast history either.

Shortly after this encounter I figured out that the generator has quirks for large boards, making a pattern. If you look at the fully solved board (embedded elsewhere in this comments section) you’ll notice that the outer edge of the board is always safe, and the left side of the screenshot has two full columns of safe squares. This turns out to be a repeating pattern (not of the mines, just the safe columns). The end result is that it’s no longer fun to play, so I turned off solvable boards and I’m now playing without. That’s how I got to today’s post.

I think the generator incorrectly expected me to have the left edge. Or something weird like that. I played this game a lot and this was the only time I encountered something unsolvable when it should have been solvable.

I ended up guessing after no one found anything, and later used an online solver (https://mrgris.com/projects/minesweepr/) to prove that there was in fact no safe square. BTW this solver is pretty cool (and different from the one I linked in the other thread), it’s more of a thing to play with and learn from than a tool. The links to use it (live demo / board solver) are on the right side of the website. Check it out, even if just for a fiddle!

Edit: I did have to input the whole thing manually, by which I mean just a cropped part that includes the unknown territory.

That’s quite impressive. Is this it? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQE73GDo4So

That is correct! The spoiler markdown doesn’t work on my end (browser on desktop) but the others didn’t even bother, so no matter!

This is precisely what I meant, thanks!