no professor math can be done this way,this is just the way i do it professor:no it can't be done this is not the way i tought you me:but it's easier for my brain to process (professor after trying my method and realising it kinda works):well it works but in my opinion isn't doing all this harder than learning my godamn formula? me:well yes sinse my brain came up with this on the spot,and thus saved me from reading countless pages and trying countless questions and ansvers before it would finaly click for me to understand it. professor's bruh face: =_=)
After reading this comment, i remember when someone said to me that if you ask a person with dyslexia about a topie they are good at, and that would be closed enough of an answer you would get. and trust me be a dyslexia myself on the topic of basic secondary school level science and mathematics, that's how I feel
@@loganshaw4527 That sounds like the philosophy behind creating the A-10 Warthog. A troop support gunship that was fashioned around making the gun fly. It actually slows down the aircraft when firing. This has lead to memes and jokes about whether an AK-47 or some other machine gun could achieve orbit by being pointed at the ground and remotely pressing the trigger.
As I understand it, there was a thought in the 40s that setting off a nuclear explosion might ignite the atmosphere, and result in a chain reaction that would destroy the planet. We did it anyway. That's the thing I take from this story.
One planet being high in recourses shouldn't have that much impact on a space varing civilization Development sure but future weaponry should be tech besed not recource
If your theory is proven wrong, time for a new theory. Calling something a rule or law doesn't make it so.... hence the theory of gravity, theory of relativity, etc.
You need to go look up the definition of SCIENTIFIC THEORY. And specifically Scientific Theory. It does not mean what you think it means. Here is a clue. In Science Theory does NOT mean an idea that may or may not be true. THAT is called a HYPOTHESIS, but ONLY if the idea can be tested using the Scientific Method. Thus the question does God exist or not is NOT a hypothesis because it CANNOT be tested. Science ALWAYS allows for the possibility of failure of a Theory, no Scientist will ever say something is 100% true, but no Scientist is ever going to say Gravity is not real, or that Relativity does not exist. At MOST they will say they we do not know EVERYTHING about them. In Science a Theory is the top of the tree when it comes to what has been proven. They are not 'just ideas'. To be a Theory in Science it has to have been tested using the Scientific Method by multiple workers and be SHOWN to be true given the observational equipment available. Theories are just some random gubbins that a bunch of dudes decided to talk about while stoned, they are the closest we humans have to actual PROVABLE SCIENTIFIC FACT given our current technology. I am sick and fucking tired of clueless morons without any Scientific training mewling 'oh but its juuuust a theory', because as soon as some idiot says that you know they have absolutely no fucking clue. Outliers are, in almost EVERY case just that, outliers, they are virtually never anything more. EDIT: Oh, a Law and a Theory are different things. A Theory covers a broad subject, the Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection for example. Laws are very SPECIFIC, and almost always mathematically describable (good luck describing Evolution mathematically given the sheer number of variables as well as the pure random chance mutations bring to the field). Generally multiple Laws will back up or explain aspects of a Theory, it is NEVER the other way around. Square Cube Law for example determines absolute organism size possible under a series of conditions, but does not explain Evolution....
I call it chocolate quicksand. It is so sticky if you put a spoon in it flip it up side down it nether the chocolate nor the spoon will fall down. The dessert just says no.
When you break the curve so hard the professor throws out the syllabus.
no professor math can be done this way,this is just the way i do it
professor:no it can't be done this is not the way i tought you
me:but it's easier for my brain to process
(professor after trying my method and realising it kinda works):well it works but in my opinion isn't doing all this harder than learning my godamn formula?
me:well yes sinse my brain came up with this on the spot,and thus saved me from reading countless pages and trying countless questions and ansvers before it would finaly click for me to understand it.
professor's bruh face: =_=)
@@theicyphoenixrecords5980 Give this person a medal!🏅
After reading this comment, i remember when someone said to me that if you ask a person with dyslexia about a topie they are good at, and that would be closed enough of an answer you would get. and trust me be a dyslexia myself on the topic of basic secondary school level science and mathematics, that's how I feel
Tanks: If you aren't causing earthquakes, your tanks aren't big enough or in large enough numbers.
lol
If your tanks are causing earthquakes good luck crossing bridges.... or rivers....
@@alganhar1 If your tanks can cause earthquakes, I don't think rivers will be a problem
@@archdornan4389 laughing in pt 1000 ratte
Need their snorkels then DIVE DIVE DIVE
I summon Cluthlu to aid in the Algorithm.
good call
@@AgroSquerril ya I hear it loves TH-cam
The human ships' main gun fire a large metal round that was know to one hit kill most ships.
For the honor of the Dinochrome Brigade!
The weapon class ships are a weapon made into a working ship. The weapon is the size of a ship.
@@loganshaw4527 That sounds like the philosophy behind creating the A-10 Warthog. A troop support gunship that was fashioned around making the gun fly. It actually slows down the aircraft when firing. This has lead to memes and jokes about whether an AK-47 or some other machine gun could achieve orbit by being pointed at the ground and remotely pressing the trigger.
@@johns9652 ah lol how long until you get a railgun plane?
@@johns9652 the alternative way to reach terminal escape velocity.
It is OUTERspace, there are supposed to be OUTliers
When the theory was proven wrong it was discarded. This is unfortunately alien.
For the Author(s), for the narrator Agro Squirrel, for the algorithm !!!
As I understand it, there was a thought in the 40s that setting off a nuclear explosion might ignite the atmosphere, and result in a chain reaction that would destroy the planet. We did it anyway. That's the thing I take from this story.
I sacrifice this comment to the Algorithm. ALL HAIL THE ALGORITHM!
For the algorithm
Hail the Algorithm
For the Algorithm
For the Algorithm
For the swarm
FOR THE ALGORITHM
FOR THE ALGORITHM
Before long as gonna get stories about the algorithm!
One can only hope , it shall please the Algorithm I would imagine
@@AgroSquerril would you have to provide notifications?..
@@hughgordon6435 lol , maybe several months after the fact
For the algorithm. For the Omnisiah.
Mars for the win?
@@hunterv9983 As a Krieger whose cousin is a techpriest...I aprove
Tank tank tank !
papew
@@AgroSquerril I hope you are feeling better.
We make our own luck
Nice stuff, thanks for the upload
a pleasure , glad you enjoyed
One planet being high in recourses shouldn't have that much impact on a space varing civilization
Development sure but future weaponry should be tech besed not recource
I was here, FTA!!!
Bob the dragon
Algorithm be pleased.
Algorithm be pleased
keeper going
kept going
All hail the algorithm ... five words minimum.
For the algorithm en stuff
If your theory is proven wrong, time for a new theory.
Calling something a rule or law doesn't make it so.... hence the theory of gravity, theory of relativity, etc.
You need to go look up the definition of SCIENTIFIC THEORY. And specifically Scientific Theory. It does not mean what you think it means.
Here is a clue. In Science Theory does NOT mean an idea that may or may not be true. THAT is called a HYPOTHESIS, but ONLY if the idea can be tested using the Scientific Method. Thus the question does God exist or not is NOT a hypothesis because it CANNOT be tested.
Science ALWAYS allows for the possibility of failure of a Theory, no Scientist will ever say something is 100% true, but no Scientist is ever going to say Gravity is not real, or that Relativity does not exist. At MOST they will say they we do not know EVERYTHING about them.
In Science a Theory is the top of the tree when it comes to what has been proven. They are not 'just ideas'. To be a Theory in Science it has to have been tested using the Scientific Method by multiple workers and be SHOWN to be true given the observational equipment available. Theories are just some random gubbins that a bunch of dudes decided to talk about while stoned, they are the closest we humans have to actual PROVABLE SCIENTIFIC FACT given our current technology.
I am sick and fucking tired of clueless morons without any Scientific training mewling 'oh but its juuuust a theory', because as soon as some idiot says that you know they have absolutely no fucking clue.
Outliers are, in almost EVERY case just that, outliers, they are virtually never anything more.
EDIT: Oh, a Law and a Theory are different things. A Theory covers a broad subject, the Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection for example. Laws are very SPECIFIC, and almost always mathematically describable (good luck describing Evolution mathematically given the sheer number of variables as well as the pure random chance mutations bring to the field). Generally multiple Laws will back up or explain aspects of a Theory, it is NEVER the other way around.
Square Cube Law for example determines absolute organism size possible under a series of conditions, but does not explain Evolution....
I can make a dessert that defy's gravity. The closer it is to another object the greater the adhesive.
I call it chocolate quicksand. It is so sticky if you put a spoon in it flip it up side down it nether the chocolate nor the spoon will fall down. The dessert just says no.
First for the algorithm
For the algorithm
For the algorithm
For the algorithm!
For the Algorithm
For the Algorithm
oh well done. liked both stories but they need fleshed out
For the algorithm.
For the algorithm
boom
For the Algorithm the story and the voice
A comment for the algorithm
algorithm
FTA
For the algorithm
For ta and sarge boomer
Algothing...
F.T.A
Screeeeeeee
a
b
C
d
e
f
91st, 13 September 2023
Not a fan of the first story
algorithm
algorithm
algorithm
algorithm
algorithm
algorithm
algorithm
algorithm