would it not just produce 'b/c'? assuming 'b/c' is an existent file path

what else could you justify it doing?

The behavior of bash would be to produce "a/c" and "b/c", even if both files don't exist

> The behavior of bash would be to produce "a/c" and "b/c", even if both files don't exist

In bash patterns like {a,b} aren't glob-expansion expansions, they're string operations, and those resolve before glob expansions.

You can confirm this with: ls /{nope,tmp}

zsh too

What sibling comment says. Bash does suppress nonexistent products when the pattern includes a glob metacharacter and `shopt -s nullglob' is in effect, but I didn't see a flag or anything to achieve that in the project README.

I am no mathematician, but i think you may be overstating Galois result. it says that you cant write a single closed form expression for the roots of any quintic using only (+,-,*,/,nth roots). This does not necessarily stop you from expressing each root individually with the standard algebraic operations.

I think you are thinking of the Abel–Ruffini impossibility theorum, which states that there is no general solution to polynomials of degree 5 or greater using only standard operations and radicals.

Galois went a step further and proved that there existed polynomials whose specific roots could not be so expressed. His proof also provided a relatively straightforward way to determine if a given polynomial qualified.

Thanks for the correction. It seems that all the layman’s explanations on Galois theory i have seen have been simplified to the point of being technically wrong, as well as underselling it.

Technically, the actual statement in Galois theory is even more general. Roughly, it says that, for a given polynomial over a field, if there exists an algorithm that computes the roots of this polynomial, using only addition, subtraction, multiplication, division and radicals, then a particular algebraic structure associated with this polynomial, called its Galois group, has to have a very regular structure.

So it's a bit stronger than the term "closed formula" implies. You can then show explicit examples of degree 5 polynomials which don't fulfill this condition, prove a quantitative statement that "almost all" degree 5 polynomials are like this, explain the difference between degree 4 and 5 in terms of group theory, etc.

isnt most of the advantage of soap is that it gets the germs off your skin and washes them down the drain. the soap does not have to kill them to work.

It's both. But you rinse the soap off, and if that's just bringing more coliform bacteria onto your hands, you then need a way to deal with those.

I thought that soap did something more than just wash the nasties off - something about it interfering with cell walls of viruses/bacteria and therefore killing them

Looked it up

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3037063/

Handwashing is thought to be effective for the prevention of transmission of diarrhoea pathogens. However it is not conclusive that handwashing with soap is more effective at reducing contamination with bacteria associated with diarrhoea than using water only. In this study 20 volunteers contaminated their hands deliberately by touching door handles and railings in public spaces. They were then allocated at random to (1) handwashing with water, (2) handwashing with non-antibacterial soap and (3) no handwashing. Each volunteer underwent this procedure 24 times, yielding 480 samples overall. Bacteria of potential faecal origin (mostly Enterococcus and Enterobacter spp.) were found after no handwashing in 44% of samples. Handwashing with water alone reduced the presence of bacteria to 23% (p < 0.001). Handwashing with plain soap and water reduced the presence of bacteria to 8% (comparison of both handwashing arms: p < 0.001). The effect did not appear to depend on the bacteria species. Handwashing with non-antibacterial soap and water is more effective for the removal of bacteria of potential faecal origin from hands than handwashing with water alone and should therefore be more useful for the prevention of transmission of diarrhoeal diseases.

Why not use antibacterial soap instead of NON-antibacterial soap? Wouldn’t it be even more effective?

The implication of antibacterial soap is that it contains antibiotics, which leads to resistance in bacterial populations. Non-antibacterial soap is a misnomer, it is plenty effective against bacteria, but kills the bacteria mechanically.

Thank you. I didn’t know.

It gets into your gut and kills beneficial bacteria.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gut_microbiota#Effects_of_anti...

i wonder how sensitive your equipment would need to be to read it from the back scatter off the interstellar medium.

unobtainium predates Avatar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobtainium

and at least that exposition makes more sense then the "fountain of youth brain juice" in the sequel, when the humans can literally reincarnate themselves without having to cross interstellar space to do it.

My physics teacher in high school used unobtanium in class and was the first I recall using it. This was way before Core or Avatar. After reading your wiki link, it fit perfectly with the definition of a frictionless, massless pulley use.

It's funny, because I'm one to use movie references in casual conversation like it's nothing, yet my use was definitely not in this case

a collision can send debris into an orbit with a higher eccentricity. these orbits may not last very long as they would also have a lower perigee.

> Like if one of the things you have to do is claim to the other device that you’re 2.1 would that get you in trouble?

nintendo tried that with the gameboy. games had to have a copy of the nintendo logo in them. i dont think it was ever tested in court though.

To an archeologist both artifacts are worth having, just look at Pompeii the frescoes tell you alot but the graffiti on the sides of the buildings tells you something as well.

Sounds like reactionary nonsense to me. It's just some names. It's not indicative of the debasement of society.

In isolation, yes. But other things have happened as well. People dress like slobs; interestingly, in my country, where GDP per capita skyrocketed since 1989, standards of clothing seem to have gone down, especially for formal occasions. We have a major problem with physical fitness, Westerners of the 1970s were much thinner and moved more. People read fewer books and spend their days consuming brainrot on Tiktok, Instagram and YouTube shorts.

(Notice that the very word brainrot is a neologism?)

I don't think we should pooh-pooh such developments as irrelevant, and I am very unhappy that they have been subsumed to the universal polarization of the culture wars that consume everything while producing nothing of value.

The Moloch indeed.

> standards of clothing

Examined more closely, this appears to mean nothing more than "people spend less time wearing the clothes that a previously dominant culture considered to be high status markers".

I think you just re-formulated what I said, in a more intellectuallish and dismissive way.

People will now turn out for a funeral in a tracksuit. Yes, previously dominant culture frowned upon such things. Yes, the culture has obviously changed.

Our main disagreement seems to be whether such change is good, bad, or irrelevant.

I could live with people dressing in a disgusting way, but I really dislike the death of book reading. That will make us all worse at thinking.

You were the one who insisted that "standards of clothing have gone down" (emphasis mine).

When it comes to culture, I believe that things change rather than go up or down. In general, I suspect there are two very long term (i.e. many millenia-long) trends that occur in parallel, one of them generally improving the human condition and one of them degrading it. The world is literally going to hell in a handbasket, at the same thing as nearly everything is getting better.

Your concerns about book reading are, of course, the opposite of those of the Greek philosophers who imagined that it would make us all more stupid.

> When it comes to culture, I believe that things change rather than go up or down.

In the '80s movie Trancers, Jack Deth is a visitor from the future, and as he's slicking his hair back with water from a flower vase a woman from the present day asks something like, "People from the future put vase-water in their hair?!" and Jack Deth replies very seriously, "Dry hair is for squids."

Yes, I can live with it, but I think the standards have gone down. It also seems to me that you basically consider that change irrelevant. We can surely disagree on that.

As for the Greek philosophers, I feel you are being too dismissive saying that they imagined us being more stupid. First, it was mostly about Socrates and second, his position was a bit more nuanced than how you present it. He was concerned about education becoming impersonal, which definitely has some downsides (until today, we haven't discovered any educational mode more efficient than 1:1 tutoring, at least from the student's individual point of view; the economic dimension, of course, differs). Second, he believed that our memory capabilities would go down, which they probably did. We don't have much contact with purely oral cultures now, but the little we do, show that pre-literate people were indeed better at remembering their collective past, including their culture, in the sense of "actually having it in their own heads" instead of "hearing about it once in the class and then promptly forgetting what they heard".

How many people today can recite a thousand songs from memory? Not that long ago, people like that would exist and keep ancient songs alive.

Today I hear Ed Sheeran ten times a day (ugh), but I wouldn't be able to recollect the lyrics even if threatened with an execution.

That is certainly one way of being stupider than before. Yes, it is compensated by other improvements, no doubt about that.

> People will now turn out for a funeral in a tracksuit.

I bet if they had showed up in a sport coat you wouldn't have found it notable despite the fact they were the tracksuits of their day: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport_coat

No, because they lost that meaning in the meantime.

Yes, it is possible that tracksuits will become the to-go clothing for funerals and theatres as well as gyms.

One theory is that you, like myself, has reached the age where many modern ways seem dumb and younger people aren't even aware of what has been lost.

Importantly: even if this is the case, it doesn't mean we're wrong!

I suggest you reflect on the value you are placing on aesthetics, and where this way of thinking ultimately leads.

You don't really know how much of a value I place on aesthetics (not that much, in fact, just more than zero, which is enough to make some judgments).

And "where this way of thinking ultimately leads"? Nowhere special.

“Standards of clothing” is not a set with a total order, and society has never had one way to dress. You’re unfairly projecting your values (of a certain style of dress) onto society as if it’s shared by everyone.

Surely the people at NASA who are launching probes aren't the ones who've become distrustful or ashamed of higher culture.

Do the launch people have influence on what precisely they launch? IDK. In a massive organization like NASA is, I would expect such responsibilities to be isolated.

i use the rss feed of the channels i am subscribed to and download the videos i want to watch with yt-dlp. i may browse the homepage every so often but i just copy the links and download them.

looks like a bottle top opener to me, in fact i think it would work just fine as one.