I'm with the right answer here. / and * have same precedence and if you wanted to treat 2(2+2) as a single unit, you should have written it like (2*(2+2)).
It's pretty common even in academic literature to treat implied multiplication as having higher precedence than explicit multiplication/division. Otherwise an expression like 1 / 2n would have to be interpreted as (1 / 2) * n rather than the more natural 1 / (2 * n).
A lot of this bullshit can be avoided with better notation systems, but calculators tend to be limited in what you can write, so meh. Unless you want to mislead people for the memes, just put parentheses around things.
The problem is whether or not that rule is taught depends on when and where you learned it. Schools only started teaching that rule relatively recently, and even then, not universally. Which of course makes for ideal engagement bait on your hellsite of choice.
the "controversy" over it isn't recent either - we can see Lennes complaining about it more than 100 years ago! The more things change the more they stay the same (sigh).
... the one on the right is correct.... that's a jank ass calculator on the left that doesn't know how to do order of operations
8/2×(2+2)
8/2x4
4x4
16
...isn't the same thing as 8/2(2+2). You separated the term in the denominator, leading the (2+2) to get flipped into the numerator, hence wrong answer.
That would be 8/(2x(2+2)) if we were keeping it all in the denominator. Multiplication happens in the numerator if there are no parenthesis to distinguish it. If thr equation was written like this:
8
2x(2+2)
Then you would also be correct, but I have to respectfully disagree with your analysis.
And the stuff there is generally good quality, since it has been used and not fallen apart for being cheap shit.
I've exclusively bought clothes, furniture, kitchenware etc. second hand for about 10 years now and everything has been cheaper and so much nicer and better quality than anything I could buy new.
I've shifted to buying a lot of things used but I still can't wrap my head around buying used clothing most of the time. There is an overwhelming selection of choices, and even if I sift through all of that to find the sort of stuff I need chances are it isn't going to fit well.
Poshmark helps for some things, but only if it's like a discrete, easily categorized item that I can clearly for (like a specific brand of hat, or a specific line of pants from a specific brand that I already know fit). I'm appreciative of brands that have started carrying their own used clothing sections - even though it's usually more expensive it's so much easier to wrap my head around.
Contrast that with things like electronics or household items which I go used for all day every day. I needed a rice cooker, bought a used Zojirushi off a local guy within a week, easy as pie.
That only works for people for whom the largest size option is too big in every dimension. For me, XXL clothing is rare, AND 75% of the time, XXL clothing is made for a person 11" shorter than me who weighs 3x more than me. Which a tailor can reduce the width, but a tailor can't make the clothes taller.
It pairs to landline phones to act as a receiver. Mostly used as an extension of a land line for, say, elderly who may have trouble getting to the phone quickly or people who work in their lawns.
Disembowelment for golfing?!? Like cut your guts and let them hang out of you - for golfing?!?! If they are going to sell the golf course, that's fine but don't cut me!
Note that limiting the maximum battery charge to something like 70 % would be more effective in those cases, completely avoiding the high voltages of a full charge.
However, even that seems absurd in such a use case. Does it matter if the old battery in an old phone gets worse? Especially when only used stationary anyway? Especially when the difference is sometime tiny like 5 % vs. 8 % (=3 % saved) capacity loss per year?
If an average person is constantly subjected to food insecurity, lacking access to clean water and sanitation, lacking medical treatment, random injury and death through constant bombings, random injury and death of relatives and friends through constant bombings and limited access to education and working opportunities, how likely are they able to concern themselves with social progress?
If we look at western countries, social progress came in times of relative safety and wealth for the broad population, while reactionary politics came in times, where these were lowered or cut. It is no coincidence that reactionary politicians combine economic hardship for the masses with scapegoating and fighting against minorities.
The way to progressive politics in Gaza is paved with working infrastructure, proper access to basic needs and a perspective for social and personal development.
Hamas is no longer any sort of threat, and requiring written condemnation of their terror attack with every post about the current razing of Gaza indirectly reinforces the purported thesis behind Israel's continued wonton destruction which is that Hamas is a threat, and Hamas will attack the moment the bombs stop.
196
Oldest
This magazine is not receiving updates (last activity 0 day(s) ago). Subscribe to start receiving updates.