Post a picture, entertain me!

Mermaidpirate wrote:

I've never seen a baby one in the wild but it's not a Photoshop, they're common and live around me.

Out of context but I thought "babies" are common everywhere! And ....they live around you!!!! Sounds like a horror movie tag line.

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/AjPy9q8.jpeg)

farley3k wrote:

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/AjPy9q8.jpeg)

I DONT WANT NO FAKE FRENCHY SKULL!! GIMME ONE’A DEM FREEDOM SKULLS!!

farley3k wrote:
Mermaidpirate wrote:

I've never seen a baby one in the wild but it's not a Photoshop, they're common and live around me.

Out of context but I thought "babies" are common everywhere! And ....they live around you!!!! Sounds like a horror movie tag line.

The cries are coming from inside the house!

dejanzie wrote:
farley3k wrote:
Mermaidpirate wrote:

I've never seen a baby one in the wild but it's not a Photoshop, they're common and live around me.

Out of context but I thought "babies" are common everywhere! And ....they live around you!!!! Sounds like a horror movie tag line.

The cries are coming from inside the house!

Nu uhh. I checked, they coming from this monitor thingy. Which is technically inside the house. Nevermind, nothing to see here.

RawkGWJ wrote:
farley3k wrote:

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/AjPy9q8.jpeg)

I DONT WANT NO FAKE FRENCHY SKULL!! GIMME ONE’A DEM FREEDOM SKULLS!!

I would have expected them to charge extra for the real ones.

Tirol, Austrian Alps

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/J3E39Y1.jpeg)

This might be the most beautiful console I've ever seen. But I'd have to wear cotton gloves every time I used it 'cause that thing would pick up smudges and fingerprints like CRAZY.

IMAGE(https://i1.wp.com/boingboing.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Screen-Shot-2021-09-28-at-9.50.17-AM.jpg)

Boing Boing has a nice writeup about it and the maker's Twitter feed has even more photos and progress shots.

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/Yie4ALa.png)

Trachalio wrote:

This might be the most beautiful console I've ever seen. But I'd have to wear cotton gloves every time I used it 'cause that thing would pick up smudges and fingerprints like CRAZY.

It sure put my controller to shame! But I don't have access to metalworking tools like that.

*whomever

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/xp6quvj.jpeg)

Of the given options, 13 is the one that’s closest to the correct answer.

PEMDAS is 2000 and late. Let's introduce some chaos and just go left to right

If you don't know your order of operations and given the fact that there is no option for the correct answer I can see a lot of people choosing 16, but I don't get the other people and their wrong answers.

Rykin wrote:

If you don't know your order of operations and given the fact that there is no option for the correct answer I can see a lot of people choosing 16, but I don't get the other people and their wrong answers.

I would argue that the equation as depicted is ambiguous, and thus poorly written. If you want a deterministic outcome, you need to use appropriate notation. Otherwise, you get that.

Nimcosi wrote:
Rykin wrote:

If you don't know your order of operations and given the fact that there is no option for the correct answer I can see a lot of people choosing 16, but I don't get the other people and their wrong answers.

I would argue that the equation as depicted is ambiguous, and thus poorly written. If you want a deterministic outcome, you need to use appropriate notation. Otherwise, you get that.

There's nothing at all ambiguous about it, though, given the well-established rules of PEMDAS.

merphle is right, there's a very clear order of operations in math. The correct answer is 2 + (2 x 4) = 10.

You all know nothing about math. Obviously it goes:

2+2x4
We can simplifly it:
2(1+1)x4
So multiply the multipliers
(1+1)x6
We obviously have two "1" so simplify that:
2(1)x6
Multiply the multiples and add the 1 gets you the correct answer:
13!

Quintin_Stone wrote:

merphle is right, there's a very clear order of operations in math. The correct answer is 2 + (2 x 4) = 10.

Going to point out that you used proper notation and got the correct answer.

Mantid wrote:

You all know nothing about math. Obviously it goes:

2+2x4
We can simplify it:
2(1+1)x4
So multiply the multipliers
(1+1)x6
We obviously have two "1" so simplify that:
2(1)x6
Multiply the multiples and add the 1 gets you the correct answer:
13!

Hehe, another example.

Nimcosi wrote:

Going to point out that you used proper notation and got the correct answer.

Mantid wrote:

You all know nothing about math. Obviously it goes:

2+2x4
We can simplify it:
2(1+1)x4
So multiply the multipliers
(1+1)x6
We obviously have two "1" so simplify that:
2(1)x6
Multiply the multiples and add the 1 gets you the correct answer:
13!

Hehe, another example. ;)

Glad you agree!

To be fair, where modern (ish?) people get hung up is when they try to put the above equation in a standard calculator; they do not do PEMDAS they go left to right. Which is why I am pushing the notation angle.

Now why anyone would put that equation in a calculator is another thing entirely.

Nimcosi wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

merphle is right, there's a very clear order of operations in math. The correct answer is 2 + (2 x 4) = 10.

Going to point out that you used proper notation and got the correct answer.

The parenthesis QStone added were completely superfluous and redundant though.

Mantid wrote:

You all know nothing about math. Obviously it goes:

2+2x4
We can simplifly it:
2(1+1)x4
So multiply the multipliers
(1+1)x6
We obviously have two "1" so simplify that:
2(1)x6
Multiply the multiples and add the 1 gets you the correct answer:
13!

6227020800? That doesn't sound at all like the correct answer.

Nimcosi wrote:

To be fair, where modern (ish?) people get hung up is when they try to put the above equation in a standard calculator; they do not do PEMDAS they go left to right. Which is why I am pushing the notation angle.

Now why anyone would put that equation in a calculator is another thing entirely.

On this, we agree. Calculators are dumb. Except Google seems to understand PEMDAS just fine:

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/www62aW.png)

merphle wrote:
Nimcosi wrote:

To be fair, where modern (ish?) people get hung up is when they try to put the above equation in a standard calculator; they do not do PEMDAS they go left to right. Which is why I am pushing the notation angle.

Now why anyone would put that equation in a calculator is another thing entirely.

On this, we agree. Calculators are dumb. Except Google seems to understand PEMDAS just fine:

Some calculators do the orders correctly, actually.

merphle wrote:

6227020800? That doesn't sound at all like the correct answer.

Call for a good time

"merphle wrote:

The parenthesis QStone added were completely superfluous and redundant though.

Not if your intended audience is mathematically-inept laymen, as proven by the original image.

merphle wrote:
Nimcosi wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

merphle is right, there's a very clear order of operations in math. The correct answer is 2 + (2 x 4) = 10.

Going to point out that you used proper notation and got the correct answer.

The parenthesis QStone added were completely superfluous and redundant though.

I kinda want to see what kind of math war we can get going...

Would you agree then that "What is 2+2+2+2+2" is the correct question?

Math Pendant N wrote:

Don't need no tables that multiply in my intentionally redundant maths.

Or is it, " What is 2x5"?

Math Pendant N+1 wrote:

I need not any superfluous addition in my equation! Multiply!

Nimcosi wrote:
merphle wrote:
Nimcosi wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

merphle is right, there's a very clear order of operations in math. The correct answer is 2 + (2 x 4) = 10.

Going to point out that you used proper notation and got the correct answer.

The parenthesis QStone added were completely superfluous and redundant though.

I kinda want to see what kind of math war we can get going...

I was kinda hoping someone would call me on my redundant "redundant".

Jonman wrote:
"merphle wrote:

The parenthesis QStone added were completely superfluous and redundant though.

Not if your intended audience is mathematically-inept laymen, as proven by the original image.

The intended audience of a given mathematical equation does not change how math works!