No the joke is that first think they got wrong, then realize it’s a factorial so they got it right (the a-ha moment!).
Then we realize that they might not have gotten it because the wrong answer is 4 and they may not know of factorials.
The ambiguity is very clever. Some other commenters call it a pun.
4 != 24 but also
4! = 24
4! = 5-5/5
Using parentheses where a few simple rules will do seems awfully inefficient. Both to write and to read.
“You should get the latest upgrade. (Point down. Pause for effect)… Elevendon.”
Yes but it wouldn’t be funny if they just said “Heh, elevendon”. It need a delivery sandwich. Maybe there’s a funnier sandwich though.
I prefer quotes to be as close to the original as possible. Hurtful as it is. That’s kind of the point here.
Censoring the bad shit that happened before is a sure way to repeat it. See holocaust denial for the extreme. Don’t deny talking about the past just because it hurts.
The knife holder forces you to pull the knives up which simply is impossible with that shelf above
It’s really easy. I use SKLauncher and a dedicated server. You need to disable some player verification setting on the server but that’s it.
They are not the same, but 0 can be implicitly converted to false.
What do you get if you do: 0 === false
I agree. If anything it should check if there is a nuumber and 0 is clearly a number.
No but then the argument above falls flat, doesn’t it?
You are obviously not interested in listening to a word I’m saying. Goodbye.
Alternatively, we need to stop saying E2EE is safe at all, for any type of data, because or the arbitrary usage.
You probably didn’t understand me. I’m saying that a company can just arbitrarily decide (like you did) that the server is the “end” recipient (which I disagree with). That can be done for chat messages too.
You send the message “E2EE” to the server, to be stored there (like a file, unencrypted), so that the recipient(s) can - sometime in the future - fetch the message, which would be encrypted again, only during transport. This fully fits your definition for the cloud storage example.
By changing the recipient “end”, we can arbitrarily decode the message then.
I would argue that the cloud provider is not the recipient of files uploaded there. In the same way a chat message meant for someone else is not meant for the server to read, even if it happens to be stored there.
Uhh yes, sorry. I had it the other way around. Perhaps a native american then raped/had child with a caucasian, who kept the child?
The third paragraph contradicts your other point. You define E2EE in two wildly different ways.
The chat messages are most likely stored on an intermediary server, which would qualify for the same loophole you pointed out in the cloud storage example.
No, the other ancestors are all native American. Obviously the child stayed in the native to community.
No because 4 is the obvious wrong answer. 21+3 my isses idea completely.
4(exclamation) is wrong while 4(factorial) is right.
I think the smugness of someone who knows factorials is also part of what makes it fun.