Ah I see. I’m not sure that’s technically possible, but if it were, that’d be great.

I think better would be simply outlawing any communication between a donor and recipient, if the donor wishes to officially remain anonymous. Not they “have no way” to prove their identity, but they’re not allowed to prove it—or even imply it.

I don’t know what you mean by

double-blind to the donor AND recipient

But to me that phrase kinda implies that the donor doesn’t know who they donated to. Which…no. It should be blind to the recipient. Entirely blind. But people donating can still choose where to donate to.

I thought it was a rather simple analogue, but I guess it was too complicated for some?

I said nothing about JavaScript or Python or any other language with my 1/3 example. I wasn’t even talking about binary. It was an example of something that might be problematic if you added numbers in an imprecise way in decimal, the same way binary floating point fails to accurately represent 1/10 + 1/5 from the OP.

A good way to think of it is to compare something similar in decimal. .1 and .2 are precise values in decimal, but can’t be represented as perfectly in binary. 1/3 might be a pretty good similar-enough example. With a lack of precision, that might become 0.33333333, which when added in the expression 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 will give you 0.99999999, instead of the correct answer of 1.

Yeah that’s how I’d pronounce it too, as a native English speaker.

A few problems with this. That requires a world experienced in 2D, with one axis being towards or away from the centre, and the other being clockwise or anticlockwise. Works great when discussing intragalactic travel, but OP specified intergalactic travel. Where there is neither an obvious centre point nor a single plane on which things predominantly occur.

Though fwiw, language very similar to that is legitimately used in some real world languages. Some Malayo-Polynesian languages, such as Manam, talk about direction in terms of seaward, inland, clockwise, and anticlockwise.

Strip any tracking parameters you spot before following any URLs.

If it’s one of these QR codes at a restaurant for ordering, the parameters could possibly be necessary to properly connect your order to your table, depending on how they’re set up.

I have no idea what the law is in India, but if he got a “hacking” charge for this it would be a gross miscarriage of justice, considering he never once did anything resembling social engineering, brute forcing passwords, any sort of injection attack, or anything else that might actually be involved in hacking.

However, assuming he never tried to reach out to the company themselves first (and I saw no indication in the article that he had), this is really quite a horrible irresponsible disclosure. It’s pretty obviously a significant leak of sensitive data—both customer and business data—and giving them 90 days to fix it before alerting the public to what you found is pretty basic security ethics.

No irony, I didn’t say straight because I didn’t mean straight. I meant exactly what I said: you can get from one point to another without crossing a line. Because if you have to cross a line, you’ve either moved into a different shape (in the case of two adjoining shapes) or moves into empty space.

As it was presented in the OP, I don’t think it is a shape. If I get two squares and stick them next to each other so one side of each is touching, have I suddenly got one rectangle? Or do I still have two squares with a border between them?

Someone else posted an amended version with the internal lines removed. The equivalent of taking those two squares and removing the border between them, so you would have just one rectangle.

You’re the second person to have made that suggestion to me, but no.

Uhh, no. A crescent is a classic concave shape, but you can travel from any point to any other in a crescent without crossing a line, because it’s a single enclosed shape.

Huh? Of course it is. A star is, so long as you don’t draw it out of two interlocking triangles, or construct it from 5 straight lines, and leave the internal parts of those lines intact. A crescent just…is. Unless you’re trying to claim the stars that sometimes appear with a crescent (e.g. on some Islamic country’s flags) are a part of the crescent itself.

Does this even meet the criteria for “a shape”? I’d have thought you need to be able to travel from any point within the shape to any other point, without crossing a line.

I’d rather just spend a fraction of the money on a Nebula subscription.

I always figured there was an implied [and I’m singing a song about them] before that “can I make it any more obviou?”

Ah, merci ! “Pinecone” est parfois utilisé en anglais pour la meme raison, mais ce n’est pas tres courant.

Merci, je le deteste.

je suis une pive

Desole, mais c’est quoi “une pive” ? Je ne parle pas beaucoup francais, et Google Translate n’a aucun traduction pour ca mot.

Tu peux même écrire “même scientifique” avec un accent

Ah. Sur mon clavier je n’ai pas les accents, donc je ne les ecrire pas, normalement.

Mais aussi, sur Wikipedia, le page qui est le traduction de “meme” est mème, pas la même que “même”.