My fear is that Google is going to succeed in using this as an excuse to unilaterally destroy the free web like they've already been trying with attestation.
But the modern web really does suck. I'm not sure how to fix it without corporate influence.
I also wonder how much modern pesticides play a part
I'm in Canada, but my province also has a shortage of blood donations except... they got rid of the blood donation clinics in a bunch of cities in 2015, including my own, saying they could easily get the province's needs met in major population centers and there was no need for it? Just bizarre.
I hate the current tech industry in general tbh
Larian has had several massively successful Kickstarter
Well that's the thing though, right, the genre actually literally had a major revival when Kickstarter became a thing. Before Kickstarter existed no one really understood the power of crowdsourcing.
I think even for people that have studied a fair bit of math a lot of it is difficult to parse. Which I guess is fair. An encyclopedia is meant to be a reference and summary of knowledge, not necessarily a teaching tool. I think it still makes an alright guidepost for something, which I can then use to find learning materials.
The conventional view on infinity would say they're actually the same size of infinity assuming the 1 and the 100 belong to the same set.
You're right that one function grows faster but infinity itself is no different regardless of what you multiply them by. The infinities both have same set size and would encompass the same concept of infinity regardless of what they're multiplied by. The set size of infinity is denoted by the order of aleph (ℵ) it belongs to. If both 1 and 100 are natural numbers then they belong to the set of countable infinity, which is called aleph-zero (ℵ₀). If both 1 and 100 are reals, then the size of their infinities are uncountably infinite, which means they belong to aleph-one (ℵ₁).
That said, you can definitely have different definitions of infinity that are unconventional as long as they fit whatever axioms you come up with. But since most math is grounded in set theory, that's where this particular convention stems from.
Anyways, given your example it would really depend on whether time was a factor. If the question was "would you rather have 1 • x or 100 • x dollars where x approaches infinity every second?" well the answer is obvious, because we're describing something that has a growth rate. If the question was "You have infinity dollars. Do you prefer 1 • ∞ or 100 • ∞?" it really wouldn't matter because you have infinity dollars. They're the same infinity. In other words you could withdraw as much money as you wanted and always have infinity. They are equally as limitless.
Now I can foresee a counter-argument where maybe you meant 1 • ∞ vs 100 • ∞ to mean that you can only withdraw in ones or hundred dollar bills, but that's a synthetic constraint you've put on it from a banking perspective. You've created a new notation and have defined it separately from the conventional meaning of infinity in mathematics. And in reality that is maybe more of a physics question about the amount of dollar bills that can physically exist that is practical, and a philosophical question about the convenience of 1 vs 100 dollar bills, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the size of infinity mathematically. Without an artificial constraint you could just as easily take out your infinite money in denominations of 20, 50, 1000, a million, and still have the same infinite amount of dollars left over.
The song Forgot About Jray was about Jandalf this whole time
Sounds like you had dreadful math teachers.
The math only really works for 18+ inch pizzas though. The pizza places around me don't even offer 18 inch pizzas. 14" large or 16" XL are the highest they go. In that case at most places near me, two twelves is often cheaper per square inch and does have more area than one 14" or 16". Especially since Domino's usually has coupons for two 12s that make it significantly cheaper than 1 L or XL.
I see this come up on social media, moreso with Gen Z and people that just like to be outraged about stuff online. They seem to be more sensitive to age gaps and call it grooming, even stuff within the typical "half your age plus seven" rule that most millenials and older gens seemed to find normal. I'm not sure that only 3 years would be a problem even for them though.
It's simultaneously possible to realize that something is useful while also recognizing the damage that its trend is causing from a sustainability standpoint, and that neither realization particularly demonstrates a lack of understanding about AI.