There you have your solution Idaxit! Leave the US, split the state and rejoin the union (US) in case you still feel like.
...or maybe don't and just use the chance and bring your legislative and judiciary into the 20th century. You will be still a ahead of the then neighbouring US at least by a century. Maybe even other states feel to follow the lead. I've heard Florida is always easy to convince for such a move; maybe skip the war declaration this time. ;-)
Disclosure: I have no clue about the underlying political/"cultural" differences of Idaho in contrast to the rest of the states...or Florida for this matter.
I agree but I'm confused how you can use Signal in the same sentence then.
Reminds me at duckduckgo: makes claims and builds big branding about security but nobody (including me) ever questioned them. (Regarding article not at hand but of course also on HN.)
The first question I would ask: how does Signal finances itself when the service is practically "free"...
For the rest I totally agree: I could also convince some for XMPP/Jabber while at the same time it lets me question my relationship to those I couldn't move. I mean it's not that these days you couldn't install a second app if you already have 50 useless i.e. "coupon" apps installed anyway.
> I mean it's not that these days you couldn't install a second app if you already have 50 useless i.e. "coupon" apps installed anyway.
Don't get me started on this. It saddens me to see so much resistance from a lot of my friends that don't even want to try a tiny, privacy-friendly, open-source, non-battery consuming app when they have like 50 attention-stealing spyware apps installed on their phone. Marketing works scandalously well.
Though I really like the idea of having some backup infrastructure already for those discussed simple cases like (top comment for example): car broke down and you..
.. forgot your mobile
.. out of battery
.. out of "credit" (in case of prepaid)
.. cuz you got robbed
.. cuz you got raped....(!)
.. cuz you lost your fingertips and can't operate a touch display anymore..
.. possibilties are hopefully rare but endless but you're just in whatever emergency at 3 am and really need a to make a call!
But just for curiosity, whom/where you wanna call in 2022++ in case of overloaded networks like Sep. 11th in 2001. At least I didn't even "own" (actually set-up) my landline anymore.
Welcome to MMXXII. About X centuries ago "we" imported the Hindu-Arabic numerals. I know, Latin numbers carry the myth of being more "safe" but really you should try the arabian numerals. They revolutionized math and eased reading text alongside.
thumbs-up
There's a process for it. I'm not sure it costs anything but it's a bunch of paperwork. You have to justify what it's used for, why existing solutions don't work, etc. The working group is probably pretty reasonable, but I'm sure it's an involved process.
If you do, can you please tack on symbols for following external links, space bar symbol, and all the other miscellaneous internet adjacent characters I always have to reach to Fontawesome for?
Dislosure: I'm not directly from the fields of the Sciences Of Angles And Ambiguously Crossing Lines nor I've every seen or used this symbol before. However to me it's, pretty evidently, supposed to be a "no right angle" symbol.
(A) It's in the math section,
(B) it's with angles,
(C) the thunderbolt ↯ is commonly used for "not" or more specifically for dis-proof in this area and
(D) at least by my 30 s internet search on a mobile phone I couldn't find any other "no-angle" or "no-right-angle" symbol.
Someone could argue that usually you use a simple strike through as like as in ≠ (unequal), ∉ (not-element-of) or ∅ (empty set) but I would say it was chosen to avoid confusion in this case. The angle itself (without the "no/not") consists of only to orthogonal lines so it would be kinda complicated to "strike it though" in any direction without ambiguity that would resemble a triangle, a fork or whatnot.
It's used in german mathematics education (secondary level), either to mark a contradiction in a proof or more generally to mark an erroneous statement.
But I have never seen it to mark negation of a condition, that's usually done with a slash (as in ≠ ≮ ≯ ≰ ≱ ≴ ≵ ⊄ ⊅ ⊈ ⊉ ⊊ ⊋ ∉ ∌ ∄ ∦, you get the idea).
So for "not a right angle" I'd have expected a "right angle" symbol with a slash through it.
Funny enough, I've only seen it at the Gymnasium (secondary level) and not in the University a few years later -- then indeed the usual symbols were the 'slashed' relations like you've described, or the bottom symbol: ⊥ in logic. Maybe it's an idiosyncrasy of a certain subset of math teachers.
But how would you position the slash to get a somewhat easy to decipher symbol? To me, the right angle symbol seems to lend itself more to this unorthodox negation through the contradiction symbol than to negation through the normal slash.
Same. Never seen that symbol in my life. I've seen ¬, ~, !, etc used for not/negation in computer science, math, logic, etc.
And some commenters said they used it to mark proof by contradiction, but why is there a need to mark it when you are showing it via proof? A canonical example of proof by contradiction is proving sqrt(2) is not rational. Never have I seen it marked with that symbol. Where would you even mark it? At the beginning with the assumption? Or at the end like QED?
I was taught it in extracurricular mathematics in Australia. We were taught that it goes at the end of a contradiction proof once the contradiction has been found. We used to write it extra large, like lightning strike. I think of it like a proof mic-drop.
It's the first symbol referenced for symbols used in proof by contradiction to show contradiction [0]. I know that's not exactly "not" or "disproof" but I think that might be what the poster was getting at.
I submit to you that it's clearly not a thunderbolt but an arrow indicating changing directions; that being overlaid on top of a pair of axes is obviously useful in the study of non-Euclidean geometry to indicate the use of wibbly-wobbly dimensions.
I've thought that it would be cool to have a Wiki with an entry for each character, describing what it is, and its history. Although that wouldn't help for mystery characters like this one, there are a lot of characters with stories behind them.
I was just discussing :man-in-business-suit-levitating: with some friends earlier today. Also an interestingly cryptic background, albeit not an unsolved one.
The story behind MIBSL is definitely fascinating and some great trivia there. There’s a longer article about it here: https://www.newsweek.com/2016/05/06/secret-ska-history-man-b... that covers not just the inspiration for the emoji itself, but a brief history behind the inspiration behind the inspiration. Lots of levels of metaness to unpack.
Aside from the table describing each symbol, if you scroll to the bottom of the page, it links out to full articles related to each. For a full list see...
I like this idea. It would serve as a place to put a well-sourced answer to the question about this character, and the talk section could be used to discuss further investigation into the topic, or when new uses inevitably arise.
I don't see the contradiction. The only thing they used from the name is the "right angle" aspect. Given their argument is this is a composition of thunderbolt + X, for some X (and derived from their prior knowledge of thunderbolt's compositional meaning), deciphering the image as "thunderbolt + right angle" is trivial and consistent with the naming origin in TFA.
> In Unicode, the symbol for a right angle is U+221F ∟ RIGHT ANGLE (HTML ∟ · ∟). It should not be confused with the similarly shaped symbol U+231E ⌞ BOTTOM LEFT CORNER (HTML ⌞ · ⌞, ⌞). Related symbols are U+22BE ⊾ RIGHT ANGLE WITH ARC (HTML ⊾ · ⊾), U+299C ⦜ RIGHT ANGLE VARIANT WITH SQUARE (HTML ⦜ · ⦜), and U+299D ⦝ MEASURED RIGHT ANGLE WITH DOT (HTML ⦝ · ⦝).[5]
> In diagrams, the fact that an angle is a right angle is usually expressed by adding a small right angle that forms a square with the angle in the diagram, as seen in the diagram of a right triangle (in British English, a right-angled triangle) to the right. The symbol for a measured angle, an arc, with a dot, is used in some European countries, including German-speaking countries and Poland, as an alternative symbol for a right angle.[6]
I think perpendicular most commonly refers to lines/vectors/planes etc., while the right angle symbol refers to angles. Also, there are often multiple symbols expressing the same thing.
I believe in German (possibly also other languages) the thunderbolt ↯ is commonly used to mean "this is a contradiction" in a mathematical proof, equivalently to in English a kind of ⋕ rotated by 45° or the symbol ※.
The symbol ⟂ on the other hand means "false" and is used in particular in formal logic.
> 2. You don't think that roads should be a car only domain? What do you think roads are for?
For example for my messanger on my horse so he doesn't get stuck in the mutt on it's voyage to the next city.
... or maybe my zenturie to support my legion?
What makes you think (or suggest) that roads where invented for cars?
I never said they were invented for cars. My question was why don't they think roads, as they are in 2022, shouldn't be a car only domain? This argument of "well their original purpose was for..." is logically incoherent in a multitude of ways. There are thousands of things that we use a bit different than originally as intended due to the advancement of modern tech
