One of my big hopes was if they won, it’d open us up to a potential Walz presidency in the future. I was all aboard with Kamala herself, but Walz? That’d be sick.

I can tell you right now that isn’t the case. Proof: be a woman and join any CoD lobby.

I think it’s fitting. He himself would be physically fine whilst everything collapses around him when the floor drops out.

Eh, he might be a cis het white Christian who hates what’s going on?

Maybe google “2020 election count” and get back.

Regardless, me? Wtf do I have to do with anything, I wasn’t running. Hell, I’m not even registered Democrat.

I feel like the language chosen was very specific for good reason.

Capitalism.

No country would be insane enough to embargo the single greatest economic power on Earth.

Sure, it makes for a great lens. You can use it to read the writing on the wall.

Removed by mod

Do you mean the ones beholden to Trump, or are we talking about different Supreme Courts?

It’s Mozilla. No one is going to see this anyway.

It’s not even a dog whistle. It’s deafening.

I hear what you’re saying, and you’re 100% correct, but I think most people will realize it’s a figure of speech, and easier to say than “Via the process of gene mutation trial and error over many, many generations of tigers, spots have developed on their ears that look like eyes, resulting in predation from behind being discourged.”

The supreme court disagrees

Fair enough, I suppose it is interesting!

In terms of the question, “Are there more infinite sequences that contain Hamlet or more that don’t?”- in the context of true randomness and truly infinite sequence, this feels like almost a trick question. Almost every truly random infinite sequence will contain Hamlet an infinite number of times, along with every other possible finite sequence (e.g., Moby Dick, War and Peace, you name it). In fact, the probability of a random infinite sequence not containing Hamlet is effectively zero.

Where it becomes truly interesting is if you have an infinite number of infinite sequences. Now you’d certainly get instances of those “effectively zero” cases, but only in ratios within infinity itself, haha. I guess that’s probably what you were getting at?

I could have worded that better. Any probability with a non-zero chance of occurring will occur an infinite number of times given an infinite sequence.

To address the comment you linked, I understand what you’re saying, but you’re putting a lot of emphasis on something that might as well be impossible. In an infinite sequence of coin flips, the probability of any specific outcome - like all heads - is exactly zero. This doesn’t mean it’s strictly impossible in a logical sense; rather, in the language of probability, it’s so improbable that it effectively “never happens” within the probability space we’re working with. Theoretically, sure, you’re correct, but realistically speaking, it’s statistically irrelevant.

As a woman who works in computer science, mansplaining is a very real phenomenon.

Infinite monkeys. Any probability greater than zero times infinity is infinity. You will see an infinite number of monkeys hitting A and an infinite number hitting B. If there were a finite number of monkeys, you would be correct, but that is not the case.

And now we’re at a point where if social media sites take steps to reduce political content, the addicts scream censorship heh