Is that sarcasm? Because I thought people hated that.
!MLHqI35Srs replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 12 minutes after the original post[^][v]#671,849
@previous (Fake dane !jJEom8Ii3E)
Not from me.
Dk about the shitposter above.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 24 seconds later, 12 minutes after the original post[^][v]#671,850
@671,845 (Fake dane !jJEom8Ii3E)
1: Never take any advise from Sophie.
2: I have never tired this. Look at post counts. If you're looking for subjects that get a lot of clicks? Give that a study. Of course on occasion click bait works. My new topics usually do not get a lot of action - UNLESS I post with click bait.
Adam Djensen replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 16 minutes after the original post[^][v]#671,856
@671,845 (Fake dane !jJEom8Ii3E)
people hate the thing autphag was posting about, everyone loves a good photoshop though!
!MLHqI35Srs replied with this 10 years ago, 31 seconds later, 16 minutes after the original post[^][v]#671,857
@previous (Adam Djensen)
Lies. Dane should learn that the whole goal is to displease people like you and attract intelligent people like him and I.
Adam Djensen replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 minutes after the original post[^][v]#671,862
@previous (!MLHqI35Srs)
the whole goal of, praytell, exactly, what?
!MLHqI35Srs replied with this 10 years ago, 45 seconds later, 18 minutes after the original post[^][v]#671,863
@previous (Adam Djensen)
Improving the trajectory of site quality.
Fake dane !jJEom8Ii3E (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 21 minutes after the original post[^][v]#671,867
It's very difficult to make a good photoshop in class though. You have to be pc and "normal" because if you aren't, you look like a gigantic weirdo.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 29 seconds later, 21 minutes after the original post[^][v]#671,868
@671,857 (!MLHqI35Srs) > attract intelligent people like him and I.
"I"
I yes I, keep reminding you that you were not intelligent enough to understand how to use Benadryl. At best you have enough intelligence to open up a bottle and that is about it.
!MLHqI35Srs replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 23 minutes after the original post[^][v]#671,870
@previous (E)
Says Syntax who doesn't understand the concept of rounding and thinks x=0.5 (a figure I never stated yet you nevertheless proceeded to pull it out of your arse) is closer to 0 than 1.
Anonymous D replied with this 10 years ago, 7 minutes later, 30 minutes after the original post[^][v]#671,874
@671,867 (Fake dane !jJEom8Ii3E) > then you have wondered outside of the quality thread path.
Click bait can be quality. I have a choice daily of items in the news that drive people nuts from news sources. People do crazy shit. The problem with those kinds of topics. People here are just not as crazy to do more than laugh in the threads.
Some of the best action I have found is by posting total crap. Use Snopes as a source. Once in a while someone will bother to look up the topic and point out its a scam. Bogus. MC people for the most part have disgust at the idea of looking anything up with Google.
Tell them they have discovered a Chimpanzee study proves Chimps spend most of their brain power on how to put the peel back on the banana, and they will fall for it.
squeegee joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 31 minutes after the original post[^][v]#671,876
@671,870 (!MLHqI35Srs)
rounding up is only a conventiom, rounding down happens in plenty of application. what you're really talking about is significant digits and truncation rules. there's no mathematical rule that you round up in any situation, math just continues to use fractions.
it's dealing with grade school math and money when you worry about rounding up as a rule. engineers will frequently round down when very close measurements mean tolerances might get fucked if you round up like it's a hard-fast rule.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
!MLHqI35Srs replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 35 minutes after the original post[^][v]#671,877
@previous (squeegee)
Generally speaking I won't bother rounding in a problem for the sake of preserved numerical accuracy. I've been studying quite a bit of mathematics at upper-secondary and lower-undergraduate levels in preparation for an engineering course I've applied for recently.