Hmm… so an approach that would have gotten Rodeo’s point across better might have been to say,

“so anarchy is just another name for the purest form of democracy.”

Because democracy is such a broad word that it is occasionally applied to the United States, despite the CIA’s history of coups and the FBI’s history of extrajudicial assassinations of citizens.

Thanks for the well-written explanation, stranger.

Who knew a company with an unhealthy obsession with harvesting every screen tap of data from every person using their services… would chicken out from connecting their servers to a bunch of clients they couldn’t monitor.

… That said, I actually didn’t see this coming. It baffles me that I didn’t, but I didn’t.

Oddly enough, on a computer, I have not seen secant, cosecant, or cotangent.

I have seen sin, cos, tan, arcsin, arccos, and arctan.

Though the arc functions will only have one parameter, so if this is homework, you’ll probably be avoiding the arcs and using secant and friends

Anyways:

sin ( angle )

If someone is asking you, "which operation should you use in the body of function sin ( hyponetuse, opposite ) then I imagine the expected answer would be, / because

1. / is an operation, and because
2. opposite / hypotenuse will perform the division that yields the sine of whatever triangle those two sides belong to.

An algorithm is the meat of a function. It’s the “how.”

And if you’re using someone else’s function, you won’t touch the “how” because you’ll be interacting with the “what.” (You use a function for what it does.)

You will be creating your own algorithm by writing code, however. Because an algorithm is just a sequence of steps that, taken together, constitute an attempt at achieving an objective.

Haus is saying all the little steps that go into approximating sine occur directly on the hardware.

There’s a lot of trouble with definitions regarding capitalism. (I’d call them intentional since muddying the waters serves the people who benefit from our current system.)

Pick any person who is complaining about “capitalism” right now.

If you proposed a system where everything was structured the same as it is right now, HOWEVER instead of shareholders and owners possessing companies, every, single company was a worker cooperative (owned and controlled by its workers) then I am 95% sure the anti-capitalist you picked would

1. Not consider that capitalism, and
2. Vastly prefer that over what we have right now

With some minor variation. (Tankies don’t think it’s possible to maintain such a system without monopolizing violence. Anarcho-communists wouldn’t be too happy about the scope and financial power of state and federal governments, and would seek to pare them down. Democratic socialists would think it was perfect. Little disagreements like that.)

But I think most other people (people who aren’t anti-capitalists) would think “that’s just a form of capitalism” if I described the above.

In fact, if I said,

A free market system, but ownership and control of the means of production is only allowed collectively and democratically. No shareholders allowed, no transferable individual ownership allowed.

Most ordinary people would consider that a form of capitalism. (Even though calling it capitalism is, technically, highly inaccurate). So it’s a difficult conversation to have. Because most “anti-capitalists” disagree with most “pro-capitalists” on the basic definition of what they are fighting or defending.

I’m actually convinced that a lot of “pro-capitalists” are more eager to defend the free market system than they are to defend transferable, stock-marketable, individual ownership of the means of production. I think they would compromise on the latter if they could safeguard the former.

The entire industry is built on catering to the vast swaths of women who get ignored by doctors and need somewhere to turn.

I highly suspect doctors are taught in medical school, “women are over emotional and prone to exaggeration.”

Hell, “hysteria” was considered a valid diagnosis until the 1950s.

Look: a lot of companies would suffer from an office real estate crash.

• the businesses that own the office real estate
• car manufacturers
• tire manufacturers
• petroleum companies
• coffee franchises
• fast food franchises lining freeways on the way to work

And most importantly, funds invested in all of the above.

People who own businesses also own stocks in other people’s businesses. Meaning they all fall and rise together. Trying to keep the “work commute” and “office rental” industries alive is just an attempt on the part of those who hold capital to keep their portfolios growing.

In secret, they are probably also trying to hedge their bets, diversify and make themselves immune to the coming collapse. They’ll try to position themselves and their capital in such a way so that the working class is the only group hurt when it happens.

But in public? They are not going to devalue their assets by standing by, complacent, as an office apocalypse approaches.