If the change is of no significance/tangible benefit, why change?

I am just not going to participate in that verification shit, and, for now, I will just not see that stuff anymore.

At least the kids growing up on the internet right now will have some kind of perspective and understanding how the shit works.

I don’t think this is necessarily the case. If stuff is too abstracted away for people to grasp, they can use it, but don’t really understand it. Like reports of people saying that college kids cannot interact with things like folders. Some of them are so digitally native, that they really lost the understanding of it.

Both can be true at the same time.

The result and the thing that caused it, doesn’t change the fact that the result would be there tho.

I think just similar names.

In Austria Maier is very common, but also Meier, or Mayer.

Tbf, GPU were already part of a significant price increase. It just stuck around and got the new normal.

Similar to the only white packaging and black text marketing from the xkcd https://xkcd.com/993/

Screenshot from the first matrix movie with pods full of people acting as batteries

It can be free, but people creating a distro can ask for money. Mostly it’s free tho, and you probably can enter a custom amount of 0.

“Even more news” general news and politics

“Trash taste” anime and japanese centric by 3 people who moved to Japan and are YouTubers

if it doesn’t have that then it’s entirely speculation.

You are very close

I know one.

A description of the decision to choose the words is contained within the video. 1:05:18

I see that the context is a different one and i also understand formal logic (contrary to what the other comment on my post says)

It’s just that if the topic is pi, I find it potentially confusing (and not necessary) to construct a different example which is based on pi (pi in binary and interpreted as base 10) in order to show something, because one might associate this with the original statement.

While this is faulty logic to do so, why not just use an example which doesn’t use pi at all in order to eliminate any potential.

I did realize now that part of my post could be Interpreted in a way, that I did follow this faulty logic -> I didn’t

Is the 1.0010101 just another sequence with similar properties? And this sequence with similar properties just behaves differently than pi.

Others mentioned a zoo and a penguin. If you say that a zoo will contain a penguin, and then take one that doesn’t, then obviously it will not contain a penguin. If you take a sequence that only consists of 0 and 1 and it doesn’t contain a 2, then it obviously won’t.

But I find the example confusing to take pi, transform it and then say “yeah, this transformed pi doesn’t have it anymore, so obviously pi doesn’t” If I take all the 2s out of pi, then it will obviously not contain any 2 anymore, but it will also not be really be pi anymore, but just another sequence of infinite length and non repeating.

So, while it is true that the two properties do not necessarily lead to this behavior. The example of transforming pi to something is more confusing than helping.

It’s a theorem. It’s theoretical. This is like complaining about the 20 watermelon example being unrealistic: that’s not what it is about.