Almost all energy released in earthquakes is released in the biggest ones. No realistic number of smaller quakes is ever going to add up to even the single biggest earthquake ever recorded.
Another factor is that literacy rates were very low before colonization, in Vietnam to read or write using Chinese characters was never a broadly known skill (outside of the elite). This is a pretty big contrast to Japan, which had double-digit rates of literacy during the same era.
I've only heard it used in tech when you have actual operations, in my experience that meant lab managers and technicians. I'm not sure what it is supposed to mean in this context.
How could one prove this is aperiodic? I'm guessing maybe you can prove that some or most of the triangles have globally unique rotations regardless of N?
In college we discovered everyone's ID number was evenly divisible by 13. Presumably it's because that's the smallest number you'd need so that you could detect any one digit being incorrect, or two adjacent digits being swapped (I think?). Or that it's just very easy to implement the increment when assigning new numbers.
It's what quite a few banks used to use as a check digit, maybe that where you remember it from. But it depends on the size of the number you want to verify and exactly what system is employed. Lots of banks used 9 or 10 digit numbers which worked with a "11 check". Nine was also often used on smaller numbers.
You can use any prime afaik for this example but your number space will be limited.
I've definitely done it in places (in the US) where locally it was not legal. But it's not like the cops ever checked and caused us trouble about it, so it's easy to get away with it if there aren't other legal issues going on.
If you believe the system to be flawed there is no hypocrisy in not engaging with it while simultaneously denouncing the outcome. For instance, I am vehemently opposed to the outcomes produced by a defacto two-party system so for my entire adult life I have exclusively voted for 3rd party candidates on principle. In practice this is akin to not voting at all. I have been accused on multiple occasions of failing to prevent the 'bad' two-party candidate from winning by 'wasting' my vote. Nevertheless, I find it well within my wheelhouse to cast critique.
What if you were disenfranchised? This happened to me before, due to residency and main-in ballot rules. This may be a significant number of non-voters.
Your intentions don't matter, only your actions. The fact is that about two thirds of the population voted that they were okay with a Trump presidency, and slightly less than that with a Harris presidency.
If your land can be treated as an asset, then we don't really have LVT yet. The goal of LVT is to tax land to the point where it is no longer an appreciating asset (and, not too much that it becomes a liability)
reply