wisha

If you rotate the hinge to angle X above the horizon, light coming in from an altitude angle of 2X (=zenith angle of 90deg-2X) will get reflected to into horizontal rays inside the tube.

So you don’t need a mount with adjustable altitude angle - the hinge accomplishes that.

There are a few typst packages for making presentation slides. Which one did you use?

Anything that’s updated with the OS can be rolled back. Now Windows is Windows so Crowdstrike handles things it’s own way. But I bet if Canonical or RedHat were to make their own versions of Crowdstrike, they would push updates through the o regular packages repo, allowing it to be rolled back.

I don’t understand your question, but are you talking about the sigmoid or arctan function?

Since this is a Rust comm, will you at least post an example using your tool with Rust?

If I give you the entire real line except the point at zero, what will you pick? Whatever you decide on, there will always be a number closer to zero then that.

They have to get smaller to fit the problem statement- if all levers are the same size or have some nonzero minimum size then the full set of levers would be countable!

Now we play the game again 🤓. I start by removing the levers in the field/scale of view of your microscope’s default orientation.

But look at the picture: the levers are not all the same size- they get progressively smaller until (I assume from the ellipsis) they become infinitesimally small. If a cluster has this dense side facing you, then you won’t “see” a lever at all. You would only see a uniform sea of gray or whatever color the levers are. You now have to choose where to zoom in to see your first lever.

This reply applies to @Cube6392@beehaw.org’s comment too.

It might sound trivial but it is not! Imagine there is a lever at every point on the real number line; easy enough right? you might pick the lever at 0 as your “first” lever. Now imagine in another cluster I remove all the integer levers. You might say, pick the lever at 0.5. Now I remove all rational levers. You say, pick sqrt(2). Now I remove all algebraic numbers. On and on…

If we keep playing this game, can you keep coming up with which lever to pick indefinitely (as long as I haven’t removed all the levers)? If you think you can, that means you believe in the Axiom of Countable Choice.

Believing the axiom of countable choice is still not sufficient for this meme. Because now there are uncountably many clusters, meaning we can’t simply play the pick-a-lever game step-by-step; you have to pick levers continuously at every instant in time.

It’s an old copypasta from reddit haha. I modified it to add the Fediverse stuff and my complaints with LaTex and improper rotation.

I didn't actually downvoted your comment but apprently someone did and now I look like an asshole 😢.