Does it matter? A discussion is not about signalling that you support the correct side even though social media seems to think so.

Pyre is an interesting sports game IMO because it doesn't try to look like any real sport.

AITA is garbage because it isn't about finding the best course of action but about whether you can pretend that your behaviour is justified, which is not helpful.

You don't need to cite, you need to provide source code. The point of GPL is to allow the user to inspect and modify the software. You can even sell it as long as you provide the modified source code under the same license.

There is a completed fan translation. https://cadetnine.wordpress.com/

It represents each circle as an equation that is only true when x and y are on the circle. By requiring that all three equations are true, you can find all points that are on all three circles.

You can either convince yourself that three circles can only intersect at one point or you can use the fact that two variables and three independent equations means that there are zero or one solutions that satisfy all equations.

You could actually even make a system that only needs two distances (and the depth)! Two circles can only intersect at two points, so you just need to figure out which one of the two you are. That can be done by looking at which of the landmarks is on the left when looking towards them.

Now the really difficult thing here is to figure out why this works even with inaccurate inputs, as the math presented on the site assumes that everything is perfectly accurate.

You can actually formulate different ways of computing the position that differ in how they react to measurement error. One way to investigate that is to take the derivative wrt. to one of the radii.

This resonated with me because I once did the same thing but in 3d and with magnetic field strength instead of distance. I never found a satisfying solution because magnetic fields are capsule-shaped rather that spherical. The shape is described by a 4th degree equation, so its exact solution is too large to be useful and the whole system of equations cannot be solved symbolically.

I hope that didn't get too intimidating.

Unfortunately these people can't distinguish actual science from bad science or completely made up things that claim to be based on science.

The main character in I, Robot is Dr. Susan Calvin. It also features Donovan and Powell. Elijah is from the robot trilogy, which happens centuries after I, Robot.

I would say the only thing the movie has in common with the book is that it mentions the book's main character and the laws of robotics. The book is all about weird behavior of robots that actually obey the laws but the movie just treats them as some corporate doublespeak.

Growing it in a lab is likely worse that growing it in an animal. Synthetic imitations are the only efficient replacement.

I calculated at one point that if you ride a bike instead of a car but replenish the calories with pure beef, it is better to ride the car. So diet matters.

Funny how we've regressed back to a state where you can only believe things you have seen with your own eyes. (And things in books, papers and old-school websites.)

Of course there is a limit. The question is how high it is. For instance, at high enough CO2 concentrations, the greenhouse effect doesn't get much stronger anymore. Also, the more CO2, the faster it dissapears by eroding rocks. That happens on a geological timescale, though.

If we did something to lower temperature, I'd be very worried about the CO2 concentration's other effect: feeling like suffocating all the time.

I found the first part of Gravity's Rainbow a very fun ride. But I took a break at that point as it is very slow to read and I wouldn't want to interrupt it mid-part. I was impressed that it was able to explain mathematical concepts in simple yet correct ways, which is rare in books let alone books this crazy.

Finnegans Wake on the other hand I haven't even given a serious try. Spelling words as you see fit is too much for me.