Yes, the definition of "epidemic" literally refers to something being widespread (etymology derived from "upon the people"). It's not wrong to refer to e.g. an obesity epidemic despite obesity not being contagious.
So let me get this right: It's okay for a blind person to write content about accessibility being trash, but it's not okay for a privileged person without disabilities to share that content.
I'm not sure how that's supposed to be a reasonable point of view. Keeping the problems nicely hidden from the larger community is not going to help anyone. Of course merely talking about a problem isn't going to solve it either, but it's more likely to lead to solutions in the long term.
You'll need to read it reasonably to get a reasonable response. But if there's a correct response with no room for disagreement then there's no conversation to be had. That's what I was saying: you read it unreasonably
I'm very confused, the author talks about having to charge a device instead of replacing batteries and blames it on Lithium-ion batteries, instead of doing the sensible thing and blaming it on devices with non-replaceable batteries.
The form factor of AA and AAA batteries (which the author prefers) exists with all kinds of chemistries, including Lithium-ion nowadays, you can recharge them, but while you are doing that you can also put new batteries in your device and use it immediately.
They are in those sizes, but they are not AA or AAA replacements because the voltages are different. If you want to use rechargeable batteries in devices made for alkaline batteries, Eneloop branded NI-MH batteries would me my preference, though other brands are also an option.
> Q is indeed dense in R, but firstly it’s very clear that there isn’t an equal number of them because rational numbers are a subset of the real numbers and there exists at least one irrational number (I pick “e”) that is in R but not in Q. So R must be at least bigger than Q.
This isn't a correct explanation, because I can use the same explanation to show that there are more integers than that there are even integers.
"it’s very clear that there isn’t an equal number of them because even numbers (let's call it E) are a subset of the natural numbers (let's call that N) and there exists at least one odd number (I pick 1) that is in N but not in E. So N must be at least bigger than E."
> firstly it’s very clear that there isn’t an equal number of them because rational numbers are a subset of the real numbers and there exists at least one irrational number (I pick “e”) that is in R but not in Q
There are N not in E, but E and N have the same cardinality.
You have a second technical mistake as well:
> Additionally you can’t say that between any two rationals there must be a real number because all rational numbers are also real numbers.
They’re obviously referring to Q as a subset of R, and for any two elements of subset Q there is indeed a member of R not in Q.
I don't see how you could interpret "a != b != c" as equivalent to "not (a == b == c)" in the first place. In the first expression a doesn't equal b and b doesn't equal c (no restriction on a and c). In the second expression you could have a == b, but b != c (and vice versa), clearly that's not equivalent to the first expression.
If you treat each "!" as a NOT, then (a != b != c) has two NOTs, but !(a == b == c) has a single one, so this is a bit like expecting that !(a && b) is the same as (!a && !b).
> It may look obvious to you, but someone will interpret “the same value” as literally the same.
But it is literally the same? Numbers are immutable, so there is a performance optimization where you can avoid using pointers internally, but the fact that they are immutable also means there is no way to distinguish between them being the same value and them being "different instances".
If you do `let a = []; let b = a; a = [1]` would your students expect that b equals [1] or would they understand that a and b now contain different arrays? If the latter, then why would think that after `let a = 22; let b = a; a = 50;` b also equals 50?
Sorting your data before searching it will only pay off if you need to search multiple things. If instead you need to search for one specific thing then going through things linearly is O(n) while sorting and searching the sorted result will be O(n log(n)).
Depends on your shell, if you execute `which -a cd` it will show you /usr/bin/cd in addition to the built-in command.
(zsh has which as a built in command, apparently bash doesn't, which causes the different output). It's unclear to me what /usr/bin/cd actually accomplishes though, even in bash.
