come on now, let them cook, trust the process

Not dietal calories.

The calorie numbers we assign to food, measure how much energy our body extracts from them when eaten.

In this context, plutonium is closer to 0

If we instead want to measure the actual total physical energy content of materia, we would turn to E=mc^2, telling us that a gram of anything has about 20 million kcal, no matter if its plutonium or diet coke. which is a slightly less useful value on food labels :D

It’s the gorillast of them all

if we suppose “just” means near in this context, “Just north of antarctica” and “Near antarctica” has exactly the same meaning.

wait, does windows jit compile C++ ??

This is false. the correct number is approximately 93%.
About 7% of everyone who ever lived is still alive.

Hyperbolic-earthers approve.

hyperbolic-earthers you mean :D

but it removed half the point…?

i know this is a joke, but i find it quite interesting those two words have completely different etymologies.

Grave as in burial site comes from an old proto indo european word for “dig”, while grave as in serious comes from french.

I mean, sure, you won’t stay alive for very long with a stopped heart.

I meant like, when someones heart stops and gets restarted again with cpr or a defibrillator or something. People often call that being dead, and coming back.

people say quitting smoking is hard. I don’t understand, I do it multiple times a day.

I know this is a definition in many places. I find it stupid and useless.

The heart beating is not a good definition of being alive in my opinion. The heart stopping temporarily doesn’t mean you died, you were just in terribly grave danger.

If a person is defined by their heart, what does that make a heart transplant?

utterly useless definition.

deleted by creator

Just to confuse him, wait five minutes then eat just one of them.

oh god the reason is even stupider then I expected

Because large numbers use the e character in their string representation (e.g., 6.022e23 for 6.022 × 1023), using parseInt to truncate numbers will produce unexpected results when used on very large or very small numbers. parseInt should not be used as a substitute for Math.trunc().

looks like graph theory to me

uh, why not?