Because of the shadow maybe. But it's practically impossible to offset the human carbon footprint with trees.

The extensions should be back online: https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/the-censorship-circumvention-extension-has-disappeared-from-the-russian-version-of-mozilla-addons/130914/38

Post birth luck can fix it. Wouldn't call Eminem a winner of the birth lottery but he was definitely pretty lucky with dr dre

That's not how it works. Your body can't detect a lack of oxygen but only build up of CO2. If you replace the air you breath with pure Helium, N2, CO, etc. you will just painlessly black out and die.

In the blog post there are even more. Texas Instruments, HP and Canon also have calculators, and some of them show 9 and some 1.

👍 That was actually one of the reasons why I wrote this blog post. I wanted to compile a list of points that show as clear as humanity possible that there is no consensus here, even amongst experts.

That probably won't convince everybody but if that won't probably nothing will.

You should read the part about WolframAlpha in the blog.

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=6%2Fxy+where+x%3D2%2C+y%3D3

It's actually "both". There are two conventions. One is a bit more popular in science and engineering and the other one in the general population. It's actually even more complicated than that (thus the long blog post) but the most correct answer would be to point out that the implicit multiplication after the division is ambiguous. So it's not really "solvable" in that form without context.

True, and it's not only about learning math but that there is actually no consensus even amongst experts, about the priority of implicit multiplications (without explicit multiplication sign). In the blog post there are a lot of things that try to show why and how that's the case.

That's just wrong. "Kilo" is ancient Greek for "thousand". It always meant 1000. Because bytes are grouped on powers of two and because of the pure coincidence that 10^3 (1000) is almost the same size as 2^10 (1024) people colloquially said kilobyte when they meant 1024 bytes, but that was always wrong.

Update: To make it even clearer. Try to think what historical would have happened if instead of binary, most computers would use ternary. Nobody would even think about reusing kilo for 3^6 (=729) or 3^7 (=2187) because they are not even close.

Resuing well established prefixes like kilo was always a stupid idea.

It's probably not, and now?

And those who understand that this joke works in any base.