irrational numbers will always be out of reach for a finite set of dice. I think if you restrict the set to the rationals, you will still run into trouble because there's a finite number of dice and an infinite number of primes, so there will always be a big enough prime whose value you will be unable to get on the denominator. E.g. if you restrict to only a d2 and d3, you can't get a denominator of 5 for your probability. So add a d5. Now you can't get a denominator of 7, and so forth.
But all the primes would suffice especially as you've excluded 1 in the set. Otherwise, include a D1 and you're golden.
To be extra clear, if you have an infinite set of dice, one for each prime, then you can attain a given probability using a finite subset of those dice. If you allow for the use of infinite dice and infinite rolls, my intuition says you can get the whole interval but let's think about it.
It's true that every real can be expressed as a convergent sequence of rationals, and that between any two real numbers there is at least one rational number. You can use this to construct a sequence of rationals that approaches the real numbers we want in the interval, and because we have all the prime dice and I have (not rigorously) proved this is enough to get any rational, we can roll any probability in our sequence. So we can get as close as we like to the real number.
Proton DB is the place to go. But I don't check 99% of games I play, unless it's going to be an expensive purchase and I want to check before I buy. I also don't bother with people's suggested tweaks on proton db unless I actually personally experience issues. The only game I've had to tweak so far has been cyberpunk 2077.
Edit: added context, I'm on 2 monitors and one of them is an ultrawide. Never had any issues that aren't similar to issues I've experienced on Windows in the past.
1, the comic is a joke, and 2, the author obviously doesn't believe the technology will exist imminently since the premise is what Elon has promised it will do, not the actual science and what is currently possible.
Stop giving the benefit of the doubt to somebody who has repeatedly and demonstrably lied about the capabilities of things they have a financial interest in. He has more money than God, in part in thanks to his deceit, he really doesn't need your help.
Even though I hate car centric infrastructure, watching a new highway or bypass spring up out of nothing is an incredible testament to our ability to work together to achieve great things
I did a comparative study on 10 things I hate about you and taming of the shrew for a term in school. In fact, a lot of our Shakespeare was dressed up as comparative studies which did make it interesting.
Ford has right hand drive escapes in Australia. Your callout about specific vehicle models is one, not entirely correct, and two, not relevant to the point of the parent comment.
That's not really true. Banks getting higher interest on loans also pay out more interest on deposits, otherwise they're unable to attract and retain customers. FI profitability is based on net interest margin (revenue from lending - losses from deposits), and they need deposits to have the money to lend out so they can't arbitrarily lower their deposit account rates to increase NIM.
Banks get richer no matter what happens, because people need loans. If anything, higher rates make it more challenging for banks to make money as people are less able to make repayments and less likely to take out loans for luxury purchases or holidays.
Warm sun + 0 wind chill + being acclimatised to 5C or less. Same deal as people suffering from heat stroke in 29C when parts of the world regularly don't fall below that for months out of the year.
irrational numbers will always be out of reach for a finite set of dice. I think if you restrict the set to the rationals, you will still run into trouble because there's a finite number of dice and an infinite number of primes, so there will always be a big enough prime whose value you will be unable to get on the denominator. E.g. if you restrict to only a d2 and d3, you can't get a denominator of 5 for your probability. So add a d5. Now you can't get a denominator of 7, and so forth.
But all the primes would suffice especially as you've excluded 1 in the set. Otherwise, include a D1 and you're golden.
To be extra clear, if you have an infinite set of dice, one for each prime, then you can attain a given probability using a finite subset of those dice. If you allow for the use of infinite dice and infinite rolls, my intuition says you can get the whole interval but let's think about it.
It's true that every real can be expressed as a convergent sequence of rationals, and that between any two real numbers there is at least one rational number. You can use this to construct a sequence of rationals that approaches the real numbers we want in the interval, and because we have all the prime dice and I have (not rigorously) proved this is enough to get any rational, we can roll any probability in our sequence. So we can get as close as we like to the real number.