The government literally actively prevents people selling all these things to children, rather than permit a free for all and then expect parents to take responsibility for steering their kids away from them.

Took me ages to realise why I couldn't kill the enemy in blue uniform behind the weird portal.

Eg you have a 15-year-old daughter and post a picture of her smiling in school uniform on Instagram because it's her birthday or something. The algorithm takes that post and shows it to randomly selected men who often interact with pictures of attractive female teenagers, even though none of your other posts get shared like this outside of your connections.

An ashtray on every desk and throughout meeting rooms. Free packs of cigarettes you could grab anywhere in the building + a certain number of packs given to you weekly, with your preferred brand recorded. Some amount of social compulsion to smoke at work and during work related social events.

If you do believe in it, then it's simply irrelevant. Given the other reasons that the US military is spent with profligacy on US manufactured goods, maintaining 'truck know-how' does not register. If the know how consideration did not exist the money would still be spent in exactly the same way.

(The article had already covered the r^3 in another part of the calculation.)

I'm trying to figure out an intuitive explanation as to why the work with the inner Jacobian is needed or an argument as to why it isn't.

Anyone want to simulate this accurately enough to distinguish between 40% and 41.9% probability? 5000 samples should be more than enough.

    int 0..1 2 pi c int 0..(1-c) (2 pi r)^3 dr dc / pi^3
    int 0..1 2 pi c int 0..(1-c) (2 r)^3 dr dc 
    int 0..1 2 pi c 2 (1-c)^4 dc
    -4 pi int 0..1 (1-g) g^4 dg
    4 pi (1/6 - 1/5)
    4 pi / 30
    2 pi/ 15

2022 8th grader cohort missed much of 6th and 7th grade. 2024 cohort missed 4th and 5th grade. These results are extremely in line with that effect, despite what people want to say about social media, teacher pay, etc.

'Gory', 'grisly', 'grim' and 'scary' do all roughly mean brutal.

'Grimm' as the name of the brothers is a red herring connection, with Gorey and Scarry also names of children's authors.

You can also see a huge drop-off in tree density going from Newham and Waltham Forest to Redbridge in the East. Since Redbridge is pretty leafy, there's obviously a significant difference in how trees are reported. It looks like maybe street maintenance in Redbridge just records one data point per segment of a road that has trees. So work or damage for all trees along Foo Road between the corner of Bar Road and the intersection with Asdf Street gets put under the same GPS location. Or they just misunderstood the assignment when passing their data to the GLA.

The City of London has noticeably fewer trees than neighbouring boroughs (except Hackney). But I think this might be that there are genuinely fewer trees as there are skyscrapers and no real residential streets.

The parks outside of the City of London which are controlled by the City Corporation also don't have trees shown on the map (eg West Ham Park and Wanstead Flats in Newham - council controlled Plashet Park has trees shown). Slightly ironic as these parks are well known for having much better maintenance than the borough controlled parks in the same areas.

The Isle of Dogs on the other hand, I think has more trees than are featured. Looks like we see Tower Hamlets trees but not trees which are privately managed as part of the Canary Wharf estates?