ETA: we’ll get there when we get there

Mine can’t be left alone with bread.

NOM NOM NOM NOM

…Abigale?

I haven’t tried it on monsoon, so I can’t say. It’s possible–testing is the thing that bigger companies seem to like to cut corners on to save money and get things out faster, so it’s entirely possible. But at least it sounds like they’re taking the feedback to heart, so it could still end up pretty good with some rework.

Originally Canadian, but a dual citizen now. I’m one of those immigrants who came and stole a job.

(yes, this is legitimately one of the available stickers, and I was super pumped about it)

I got the “I voted yay” one!

That’s the thing–it’s more than bug fixing. They’re reworking a large amount of the content. I’ll probably pick it back up in a few months and see how it’s coming.

Surprise, I’m both!

“What’s your gender?”

“Canadian.”

“No, who do you like?”

“Donuts.”

“No no, what’s in your pants?”

“Polite manners.”

Yeah, it’s about how electromagnetic energy travels through space.

If AB = i and BC = 0, then B would be in the same 2D space as C, but one of them would be “above” the other in 3D space (which doesn’t exist in this context, just as sqrt(-1) doesn’t exist in the traditional sense).

So this triangle represents a 2D object that is “standing up” on the page.

The short version is: we use some weird abstractions (i.e., ways of representing complex things) to do math and make sense of things.

The longer version:

Electromagnetic signals are how we transmit data wirelessly. Everything from radio, to wifi, to xrays, to visible light are all made up of electromagnetic signals.

Electromagnetic waves are made up of two components: the electrical part, and the magnetic part. We model them mathematically by multiplying one part (the magnetic part, I think) by the constant i, which is defined as sqrt(-1). These are called “complex numbers”, which means there is a “real” part and a “complex” (or “imaginary”) part. They are often modeled as the diagram OP posted, in that they operate at “right angles” to each other, and this makes a lot of the math make sense. In reality, the way the waves propegate through the air doesn’t look like that exactly, but it’s how we do the math.

It’s a bit like reading a description of a place, rather than seeing a photograph. Both can give you a mental image that approximates the real thing, but the description is more “abstract” in that the words themselves (i.e., squiggles on a page) don’t resemble the real thing.

This is pretty much the basis behind all math around electromagnetics (and probably other areas).

Root

It can tell 'cause of the way it is.

Some majors are straight-up pyramid schemes. If the only thing you can do with a major is to teach it to others, it’s a pyramid scheme.

Ah, that would definitely make a difference. A debit transaction uses some form of “password” like a PIN or the data embedded in a card chip. A credit transaction technically only relies on easily available data and sometimes a signature, much more common for fraud (it’s pretty easy to read and replicate the data from a magnetic strip–one of my classmates did a project to read magnetic strips, and they had to stop letting people swipe their own cards on it because it popped up tons of confidential data).

My CU’s website definitely looks like it’s from the early naughts, but they at least kept things up to date and security practices seemed legit, and I don’t think I ever tripped the fraud detector. I guess everyone’s mileage will vary a bit.

I think the question “do the ends justify the means” is meant to invoke exactly what you’re describing. What you call the “desired end state” is what the question means by “the end.” The question is framing exactly what you’re saying: the path of reaching a desired outcome includes everything it takes to get there–is it still a desirable end? Is the entire path justified, given the intermediate consequences?

I’m guessing it’s worded this way because we apply this question/principle to situations where the “end” is altruistic but the “means” are not, and it’s specifically asked because people want to separate the two to ignore the moral/ethical implications of the means. The entire point of the question/principle is that the end cannot be separated from the means with regard to whether it is ethical.