Counting cohomology has done to me a numbers x_x

True nathematician would never make a mistake distinguishing finite and infinite cardinality. Countability, on the other hand… (but that’s a separate issue)

If only haskell devs were writing documentations, instead of going “type sigs is all the documentation you need!”

There is no good programming language, even including the ones people do not use.

I wish I were you, I struggle so much with reading books and papers

They do have antiderivatives, you just cannot elementarily compute them. Non-exact differential forms, however…

Seems like one can maybe work with complex metric. Interesting idea

I am sorry, but… to be pedantic, pythagorean theorem works on real-valued length. Complex numbers can be scalars, but one does not use it for length for some reason I forgor.

I thought this was taught in high school. Curriculums differ drastically between countries, don’t they?

The haskell examples look more like an arcane wizardry.

So I missed out on US nuclear stock? Damn

I mean the combinatorics and the imagery is nice.

Topology on steroids with K-valued logic, nice

I’d say still risky. They might perpetuate the bubble for longer, which means high risk of forced covering at loss.

I am not familiar with this, would you share what country you are talking about?

Will they let go off the greed?

May I ask for an interesting archeological piece/story?

Agreed, guess this is unpopular opinion but palworld just looked like a copycat from the get-go, especially the capture mechanic. It is too similar imo.

It has been a good run

This one comment of 4 words triggers me so hard that it momentarily stumped me