If you want the magic explained, here’s a start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lempel%E2%80%93Ziv%E2%80%93Welch

Huh, really? I thought there were slightly more women than men, but maybe that depends on the economies etc.

As for your second point, yes, exactly. They don’t reproduce. So it doesn’t matter if many men get one wife each, or if a few men get many wives each, the number of pregnancies won’t change, and the number of pregnancy-related deaths won’t change either. So (again), I don’t see how polygyny helps in this situation.

Edit: This first point was wrong, but the second point still stands.

Polygyny wouldn’t solve the aforementioned problem if we suppose that the birth rate of men and women is roughly the same. If one man has many wives, some of whom even die, then several other men won’t have any wives.

Hardly a surprise, since Windows 10 didn’t need new hardware to run. You could install it on anything.

Not only is that headline’s grammar exceptional(ly bad), for a moment I thought the developer of Control was named Alan Wake. Like, how did they manage to butcher that so badly?

Because you don’t need to have significant experience or rent a VPS in order to do that, and I can respect that. We don’t need to force FOSS developers to become proficient in everything.

What needs to happen is some kind of tool (ideally FOSS) that lets you spin up an actual forum with the same difficulty to set it up as Discord.

That could work too, but for many people, being able to dodge/avoid hits is exclusively the DEX bonus to AC, and they believe it doesn’t have to do anything with hit points.

I’m on two minds about that: On the one hand, it’s true that you’re far better at dodging in lighter (or no) armor. OTOH, I agree with you that experience teaches you to decide where you’re going to get hit if at all. So it might be something like “raise your arm so the strike doesn’t hit your belly”.

I rationalize it as “You took some blows so now you have a better pain tolerance”.

Possible formula: Tax for n-th house = n-th Fibonacci number + 5 * max(0, n - 2). So low numbers like three get penalized by that linear part, and high numbers grow exponentially due to the Fibonacci number.

Can you even kill something that’s already dead?

Gotcha, I didn’t catch that on my first read-through.

This seems wrong…

10^17 milligrams

-> 10^14 grams

-> 10^11 kilograms

-> 10^8 tons

So it should actually be 553 402 322 tons, which means that we can do it only using the rice produced in 2022.

But you just completely ignored everything I said in that comment.

Mathematically, that is precisely how O notation works, only (as I’ve mentioned) we don’t use it like that to get meaningful results. Plus, when looking at time, we can actually use O notation like normal, since computers can indeed calculate something for infinity.

Still, you’re wrong saying that isn’t how it works in general, which is really easy to see if you look at the actual definition of O(g(n)).

Oh, and your computer crashing is a thing that could happen, sure, but that actually isn’t taken into account for runtime analysis, because it only happens with a certain chance. If it would happen after precisely three days every time, then you’d be correct and all algorithms would indeed have an upper bound for time too. However it doesn’t, so we can’t define that upper bound as there will always be calculations breaking it.

It’s very pedantic, but he does have a point. Similar to how you could view memory usage as O(1) regardless of the algorithm used, just because a computer doesn’t have infinite memory, so it’s always got an upper bound on that.

Only that’s not helpful at all when comparing algorithms, so we disregard that quirk and assume we’re working with infinite memory.

To be honest, I don’t really like it either, which might surprise you considering my last sentence. I just couldn’t resist making a small pun myself.

Got a laugh from me, but I did mean only the ‘a’, not the ‘ar’. I couldn’t think of any other English word with that sound unfortunately, do you have a better suggestion?

Try pronouncing the ‘a’ in pan like the ‘a’ in large, then you’ll end up with a rather well-done pun.

Funnily enough, in D&D 5E that wizard explicitly can cast that spell (if you’re equating Power Word Kill to Avada Kedavra)

I mean, it’s literally the second sentence in that article: Dragon Rider by Cornelia Funke

Wouldn’t 10d10 be something very different? Like, I can get a result of 43 with the commonly used definition of 10d10 (10 dice with 10 sides each), but I can only get multiples of 10 with the die in question.