Or the person telling the story lies some of the time in which case it's not a riddle and you're just talking to a normal person
I have seen 1 called a trivial factor, but I have never seen it excluded entirely from a factor list: perhaps it's a cultural thing like how 0 is/isn't a natural number depending on where you are from.
On further research it seems like my earlier critique about requiring exactly two prime factors is a little off in any case, as it would exclude e.g. 4 (which only has one prime factor). It seems like semi primes must be a product of exactly two prime numbers so I think any definition based on number of factors is doomed to over- or under- define these semi primes as they could have either three or four factors.
Well primes themselves are the product of exactly two (natural) factors, only one of which is prime, so we need to specify semi primes as having exactly two prime factors.
Only one I'm aware of is the despecialised edition - a restoration of the OT using HD footage from newer releases (so han shoots first again among other things)
With the way multiverses are so in right now, more likely he'll reappear as Hawk from Titans
I like the idea that time machines are like phones in that you need a receiver to pick up the signal. A consequence is that you can only travel back to the time that the machine was turned on.
In practice, this makes these networks very resilient to fraud.
Could like, 51% of the owners just coordinate to kind of, do a fraud?
Sybil attacks sound like the kind of thing you're talking about. I don't have the expertise to go into it, but one person (or a group) creates lots of nodes and uses that influence to do bad things to the network, potentially including fraud. Or as you suggest, legitimate users can just coordinate to do whatever they wanted (see ethereum vs ethereum classic if you want a chuckle).
I want to make a note that the networks are only resilient to a specific type of fraud - people trying to enter data in a way that doesn't meet the criteria of the system. That's all well and good for wallet to wallet transactions, but when you have transactions going off chain (like buying something, trading for other kinds of coins, doing anything with crypto exchanges), there are still plenty of other kinds of fraud that are possible and happen all the time, because while the chain is fairly trustworthy, nothing else about the system is. Most kinds of fraud involve doing things that technically you have permission to do, because you lied to people to access their password or promised them bigger returns in the future or missold a product or service etc and all of that is still possible under crypto. In some cases crypto is more vulnerable to these things because of having no central authority or regulator or laws or whatever.
sadness-sadness would be depression.
Wait I thought the implication in the first film was that depression was when your emotion console thing stops working and you can't feel properly at all. Granted it's years since I seen it
Oh I'll admit I'm wrong either way, but yes I do not like my authority to be challenged. It makes the class significantly harder to manage when students feel like it's OK to dunk on me at any opportunity and provides a bad environment for learning. My preference would be respect, but I will settle for being treated with respect. If a student won't offer it to me with their questions, then I won't offer it to them with my response. But I will always admit they are correct (if they are).
Authority that cannot be challenged is authority that cannot be respected. Authority must continually earn the respect of its constituents, or it will lose its power over them.
I sort of agree with this. In a classroom, you can challenge me, my knowledge, my abilities. I like to think I earn the respect of my students with all of these, as well as my compassion, my fairness, my humour.
The reality is that I am an authority however. I wrote the assignments and the exam and I mark them too, and I do it all in accordance with the state-mandated curriculum. If they "know" something because they read about it elsewhere, I should be treated as a equally valid source of information because I am. I know the curriculum inside and out. They dont "need me to admit that I was incorrect, and move forward with the correct information", they need me to tell them why the thing they "know" is not the thing I'm teaching them. I offer that I was incorrect out of humility, not necessity.
For me it matters how the question is asked. I love getting questions beyond the scope of the curriculum as it varies up my classes from year to year. However, "Actually there are 4" as in the meme is disrespectful, challenging and undermining. "I heard something about a fourth state of matter, what's up with that?" is a prompt to reasoned discussion.
As a teacher, this type of response is a great jumping off point for the discussion of curriculum vs truth, what is the extent of reality vs what is going to be on the assignment / exam etc.
It's also a great way to stick it to the know-it-all who is trying to undermine my credibility, and has the added bonus of perking up the rest of the class.
Can someone explain why this bill prevents IVF? So OK it says that the embryo in the petri dish or whatever is a human. Is the point that therefore other various laws apply to it and so it can't be implanted? Or is it other parts of the process are now forbidden like the freezing others have mentioned?
*how do you own colossal order, colossal order