Yes it does make sense in context. Using the word robbers to mean “taking the lives of animals” does not make sense in context and is a stretch beyond the imagination. Also, I never asked, “what were they stealing from the animals,” and I don’t appreciate you quoting words I never said!

Maybe you should just try being lucky. I found a critical security vulnerability while working on my scraping project. I told them, they paid me and gave me written permission to scrape.

This is somewhat hateful of you to say, and it’s also false. People don’t take joy in feeling angry, and feeling angry doesn’t make you feel powerful. Anger can feel a lot better than sadness, embarrassment, and fear because it externalizes the cause of your emotional state. Anger is reinforcing because it displaces those other negative emotions. They aren’t getting angry because they enjoy it. It’s just a coping mechanism.

I used to struggle with this type of road rage myself. It started out with occasional shouting at other drivers and slowly grew to a near constant state of anger whenever I was driving a car. It felt awful. There was no part of me that liked it. In my case, the anger was almost always a reaction to feeling scared about being late. I got over it by making sure I always left with extra time to spare.

It can also mean to overcharge someone, which is likely how it is used here. The exorbitant price of sacrificial animals is multiply attested. The poor couldn’t afford it

I’m not sure how your interpretation is meant to work out. I don’t see how people would be compelled to give their belongings to someone if the threat is directed towards random sacrificial animals. Are you trying to say that they were stealing from the sacrificial animals themselves, and that’s why he called them robbers? It doesn’t make any sense to me.

That’s not true. He denounced them for price gouging gentiles who came to the temple to make sacrifices. He didn’t call them murderers - he called them thieves.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+21%3A12-13%2CMark+11%3A15-18&version=NASB

Source: trust me bro

Middle managers don’t get to pocket any of the unspent budget. That’s crazy talk.

I think it’s important to realize that Christmas has lost a lot of it’s religious connotation in the West. Don’t get me wrong, everybody knows it’s a Christian holiday meant to celebrate the birth of the Christ. However, there is no assumption that because you celebrate Christmas then you must be a Christian. That isn’t the case for Easter. People who celebrate Easter in the West are typically Christian. This makes Christmas the more publicly celebrated holiday, which feeds back into it’s own popularity.

I am not super familiar with eastern Christianity, so I could be wrong. It may be that Christmas has the same religious connotations in the East as the West. If that’s the case, then disregard my previous point.

Here are some other perspectives:

Jesus was the Christ before he was resurrected. The resurrection is all good fun, but once Jesus was sent to earth, the whole train was set in motion and salvation became inevitable. The incarnation of a God bringing salvation is something to celebrate.

Historically speaking, I’m pretty sure Christmas is bigger just because it co-opted all the Saturnalia festivities as a concession to the pegans so that more of them would join Christianity. Saturnalia was all about partying and beating up Jews, so it was obviously immensely popular and helped Christianity grow much quicker than if they required the pegans to give up their festival. With all the Greek and Roman influence on the West, it shouldn’t be too surprising that they treat Christmas in the same way - but hopefully with less ethnically charged violence.

Finally, it’s easier to tell cute stories about a birth than an execution and subsequent resurrection. “Look at the cute little baby with the animals” vs “look at the immortal zombie man with holes in his body”. This matters a lot in a hyper consumerist society.

It’s not stupid. Most cars will signal whether or not they are locked properly on the second press.

A group is not an algebra. A group consists of a single associative binary operation with an identity element and inverses for each element.

A ring is an abelian (commutative) group under addition, along with an additional associative binary operation (multiplication) that distributes over addition. The additive identity is called zero.

A field is a ring in which every nonzero element has a multiplicative inverse.

A vector space over a field consists of an abelian group (the vectors) together with scalar multiplication by elements of the field, satisfying distributivity and compatibility conditions.

A non-associative algebra is a vector space equipped with a bilinear multiplication operation that distributes over vector addition and is compatible with scalar multiplication.

An (associative) algebra is a non-associative algebra whose multiplication operation is associative.

You can read more about these definitions online and in textbooks - these are standard definitions. If you are using different definitions, then it would help your case to provide them so we can better understand your claims.

There’s a general negative attitude towards chromium browsers due to some anticompetitive practices pulled by Google in addition to privacy concerns and probably some more issues I’m not aware of. So that includes chrome, but also edge and most other chromium based browsers.

The definition I’m aware of for non associative algebras has them distributive by default, so I believe the chain of equations is valid.

It’s not the same, and you kinda answered your own question with that quote. Consider what happens when an object defines both dunder bool and dunder len. It’s possible for dunder len to return 0 while dunder bool returns True, in which case the falsy-ness of the instance would not depend at all on the value of len

Interesting. I think it isn’t unital either otherwise Ω=0.

0=Ω+Ω=Ω+ΩΩ=Ω(1+Ω)=ΩΩ=Ω

Yeah. That makes sense. It is definitely a real problem.

I respectfully disagree. Its thesis is simply that you can have a better life if you stay alive. The “proof” is simply all the changes the artist went through in order to find a better life. The changes aren’t supposed to be a recipe on how to make your life better - I don’t think the artist is telling people to divorce their spouses. There isn’t anything “just be happy” about getting a divorce.

I don’t recall any socialized courier or food delivery services.

2 may be the only even prime - that is it’s the only prime divisible by 2 - but 3 is the only prime divisible by 3 and 5 is the only prime divisible by 5, so I fail to see how this is unique.