Because I’m just interpreting the statement as it was written while you are reading an additional argument into it that the comment plainly does not make. I suggest you brush up on argumentative theory if that is too difficult for you to understand
Because I’m just interpreting the statement as it was written while you are reading an additional argument into it that the comment plainly does not make. I suggest you brush up on argumentative theory if that is too difficult for you to understand
The statement I was addressing was where they were called “exactly the same.”
You are the one misinterpreting a statement here, by insinuating that the OP’s assertion of “exactly the same” was referring to Russia and US as a whole. It wasn’t, and so the point you’re arguing against is one that OP never made.
You’re arguing as if they had said Russia and the US are morally the same; what they actually said was that they are guilty of the same aforementioned crimes.
The [US] is actively and purposefully destabilising multiple countries and are basically terrorists at this point
Tell me how that sentence is wrong.
Imagine if you broke down
soo just another Tuesday? 🥲
I haven’t read it but it’s a terrible idea.
“Yeah sure I don’t know what I’m talking about, but here’s my strong opinion anyways”
That isn’t what they asked! They asked about when it is tolerable to use fewer digits and at what point the loss of precision becomes a concern again. Your responses have nothing to do with that question.
There’s no authority that would use a higher number of decimals
Cool, but that still doesn’t answer OP’s question.
The link you provided doesn’t even answer the question because it only tells you what NASA uses and then what would happen if you used no decimals at all. So your answer is not only rude, but also lazy and unhelpful.
The community is called “No Stupid Questions”, maybe you could adjust the tone of your answer accordingly.
Like when Covid lockdowns were causing shortages and every right winger said “this is what life under socialism would look like” without a hint of irony
Ok, I like this description a lot actually, it’s a very quick and effective way to explain the effects of no backtracking. A lot of the answers here are either too reductive or too technical to actually make this behavior understandable to a layman. “It just predicts the next word” is easy to forget when the thing makes it so easy to be anthropomorphized subconsciously.