Yes. I am well aware. 6 ÷ 2 * (2+1) = (2+1) * 6 ÷ 2 = (6 * (2+1))÷2 = 6 * (2+1) ÷ 2

What he wanted to do is 6 ÷ (2 * (2+1))

But this just comes down to if you treat 2(2+1) as one or two expressions.

And honestly, i don’t blame anyone for thinking one way or the other. Because i think most people understand that we wanted to write (2(2+1)), just that the overall parentheses is implied

Why i deleted that first comment within seconds was because i saw i had misread the meme as (6÷2)(2(2+1))

deleted by creator

What makes you think that they are not smarter than humans?

The past 30 years of studies conducted on them.

All of the things you’ve highlighted, except speaking to dolphins, are things primates also do.

The very specific topic for this post, were applied mathematics and critical thinking. And no, orcas do not show any advanced application of mathematics.

If you know of a study that indicates their understanding and application of mathematics rivals ours. Please link it.

The question was more intelligent that us in applied mathematics and critical thinking. Dolphins, whales, orcas have all been well studied. And while they are in the top 0.01% of intelligent life on earth. They are on average not smarter than humans. Though I can not speak for the below average humans.

The likelihood of that is a statistical zero.

Intelligent civilisations leave traces. We’ve found none that would indicate another species that would have the potential of rivaling us

Believe it or not, but everything is not about the US. Sometimes countries decide on policies without a single thought as to what the US thinks about it

This is obviously a fake image, Pluto is still there.

Glad you didn’t. Be careful, we removed the door before moving it so it was at least slightly lighter.

If you want an actual (reasonably) secure safe in your home. Get a proper gunsafe that can be bolted to the ground and/or wall.

A fucking pain in the ass to transport if you ever move though. But that’s the cost of having a reasonably secure safe at home.

If you need something more secure than that, I think you need to store it in a bank.

No, you’re supposed to make fun of the US for not being able to maintain a supply line to a war they started themselves.

So, they sent their navy to the middle East with no plans on establishing or maintaining a supply line?

This is hilarious levels of incompetence.

I’ll be honest, I didn’t exactly proof read every word either.

I think what they meant with parabolic reflector is the reciever. They mentioned they 3d printed a reciever to achieve recors breaking efficency (short range). It’s not so easy to gather and convert the microwaves into electric energy. And it’s probably not very easy to create a concentrated beam either.

But that was my interpretation. I’m not going to pretend I understand everything about this. I could be wrong.

I think the technology to have satellites charge drones in the sky is at least 50 years away.

We already have concentrated microwave beams. And they do suffer immense energy loss on longer distances.

If you want to transfer energy via microwaves, your efficency will reach single digits real fast on any meaningful distance.

You are right that the inverse square law doesn’t realistically apply with concentrated beams. But you still have energy loss. Lots of it.

But don’t take my word for it. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-25251-w

Yes but you are charging through a conductive cable. It’s not even remotely the same as charging something with microwaves.

The power delivered decreases exponentially with distance. I’m sure you’ve heard the phrase “inverse square law”.

Because you divide the effect and gain by 4pi(r^2) meaning your output is decreased by 75% every time you double the distance.

You’re going to need ridiculously powerful hardware and an enormous amount of electricity to run it on any meaningful distance.

Yikes… if that’s what you gathered from my comment. I feel sorry that your educational system failed you.

Please… Read the examples they give you in your link. It’s very obvious which “kind of” they refer to.

The sequence of words are the same but the meaning is not.

When you say “my kind of people” you are talking about your kin.

Look, you are free to write however you want. I really don’t care. I just find it sad that people don’t know how or which words to use.

What we say and how it’s written are two very different things.

In Swedish we have plenty of words that are pronounced identically, but they are spelled differently.

English is not much different. Take “you’re” and “your”. The pronounciations are almost identical, and in many dialects they are identical.

Yes. That’s kinda my point. And in the context of human kind. We refer to it as “my kind of people” in writing.

It shows that people don’t read books anymore.

I see, so when you’re complimenting people you say “that’s kinda you”?

Or would you say “that’s kind of you”?

Feel free to say it out loud and let me know

By all means, tell me how I’m wrong. I’d love to know