Well I ain’t just gonna repeat it…

Nah, TCP is still just kicking the box over, but just kicking it over again, if the reciever doesn’t kick back a box saying they got it.

That’s just false. For example I didn’t know Nebula existed before all those sponsored segments on the creators videos but I like the service now and am happy I got it…

Because I didn’t know of it before?

I know my klick on the link is counted if I am interested in the product they are selling.

Ot does if its a good ad / sales pitch and I actually buy the product which is not gonna happen if it is automatically skipped.

My nebula subscription hasn’t gotten more expensive.

I was kind of dissapointed when I read the new pipe team was having an issue with sponsor block, but tbh their reasoning makes a lot of sense:

https://newpipe.net/blog/pinned/newpipe-and-online-advertising/

And even thought I am using the sponsor block fork now I only skip the non-music part in music videos, because I do agree that creators have to make money somehow. And while I don’t love ads most of the time (sometimes they are really well made) my main issue with ads on Youtube/the wider Internet is how intrusive they are and them not respecting my privacy.

How is that legal?

B is for Bribery

can I grab you 👉👈?

I’ve also used it to clone my car fab as a backup.

does that work? I thought modern cars used a challenge/response or rolling key system.

There seems to (at least theoretically) whitelist pairing-requests by mac-adress. Randomly hitting those few approved adresses consistently seems fairly unlikely: https://kb.vmware.com/s/article/50121103 (how to do it on Samsung, wish I had this option as well)

yay, we replaced it with more ?masculinormativity? :D.

Try (100,100,100,100,100,101) or 50 ones and a two, should result in 102 and 4 as a max respectively. I tried using less numbers, but the less numbers you use, the higher the values (to be exact less off a deviation(%-difference) between the values, resulting in higher numbers) have to be and wolframAlpha does not like 10^100 values so I stopped trying.

thanks for looking it up:).

I do think the upper bound on that page is wrong thought. Incedentally in the article itself only the lower bound is prooven, but in its sources this paper prooves what I did in my comment before as well:

for the upper bound it has max +log(n) . (Section 2, eq 4) This lets us construct an example (see reply to your other comment) to disproove the notion about beeing able to calculate the max for many integers.

to be fair it does seem to work for any two numbers where one is >1. As lim x,y–> inf ln(e^x+ey) <= lim x,y --> inf ln(2 e^(max(x,y))) = max(x,y) + ln(2).

I think is cool because works for any number of variables

using the same proof as before we can see that: lim,x_i -->inf ln(sum_i/in I} e^(x_i)) <= ln(I|) +max{x_i | i /in I.

So it would only work for at most [base of your log, so e<3 for ln] variables.

laxatives and sirup?

pan

*visible confusion*

Like…no. Just stir it occasionally lol

Why? It doesn’t stick while its in the water either way (for me at least, maybe the starch content varies enough to change that around the world).