عندما يملأ الحق قلبك تندلع النار

after some time apart, ive reconnected with a good friend of mine. they're a disabled trans person now living alone after their girlfriend attacked them physically last night. they relied on her income as they work very little due to their disability and otherwise only have limited income from their disability benefits.

they have been struggling for a while with all of this and has endured a lot of abuse. picking up their life is hard enough, but the stress of financial strain makes that really difficult, especially when it comes to separating from their abuser.

can we start by getting them $500 to make up for this month's lost income, and make sure they don't fall behind on their bills?

you can donate to them via paypal here!

if you don't have paypal, you can send it to me via venmo or cashapp (both deepseametro), and i can pass it along to them.

my friend is still getting settled into life. they're going to be taking time off of work for intensive outpatient therapy, and need money to cover those bills!

From the second equation we get that cheeseburger plus fries-squared is five. Subtracting cheeseburger, which is six, from both sides, we get that fries-squared is negative-one. Math fans will know that there are two solutions to this; either fries are the "imaginary unit" 𝒾 or they are its negative, -𝒾. We'll do the rest of the problem with 𝒾, keeping in mind that at the end we should also take the complex conjugates as solutions.

Finally, we have that cup to the power of fries, minus cup, equals three. Replacing fries with 𝒾, and moving a cup to the other side, we get that cup-to-the-𝒾 is equal to cup-plus-three.

Now, the weird part about this is the cup-to-the-i. The problem with this is that complex exponentiation is technically not a thing. That is to say, there is no one function which is mathematically equal to "input-to-the-power-of-𝒾". In fact, there are infinitely many such functions.

Fortunately, due to reasons that take about six pages to explain (trust me I've done it), there is one particular function that many people have agreed is "the most reasonable one". This is not a mathematical notion, but a human preference. Seeing as this question was presumably written by a human, I am comfortable with using this function.

So, what function is this? Well, given a complex number r∠θ written in polar form (if you don't know what that means don't worry), where -π < θ ≤ π, then (r∠θ)^𝒾 = e^(-θ)∠ln(r).

Applying this to our problem a value r∠θ will be a possible solution for cup if e^(-θ)∠ln(r) = r∠θ + 3. Splitting this into real and imaginary parts, we get two equations: e^(-θ) cos(ln(r)) = r cos(θ) + 3 and e^(-θ) sin(ln(r)) = r sin(θ). We can graph these equations on Desmos:

let the value of the glass = z, for z ∈ ℂ:

z^(±i) = 3+z

let z = r·e^(iθ) for r,θ ∈ ℝ, -π < θ ≤ π

∴ z = r·e^i(θ+2πn) for all n ∈ ℤ

∴ (r·e^i(θ+2πn))^(±i) = 3+r·e^i(θ+2πn)

distribute powers (apologies for the use of ∓):

r^(±i)·e^(∓(θ+2πn)) = 3+r·e^i(θ+2πn)

convert to the same base:

e^i(±ln(r))·e^(∓(θ+2πn)) = 3+r·e^i(θ+2πn)

split into real and imaginary components:

re: cos(±ln(r))·e^(∓(θ+2πn)) = 3+r·cos(θ)

im: sin(±ln(r))·e^(∓(θ+2πn)) = r·sin(θ)

Because you can't recruit people to willingly jump out of mid-flight passenger planes for science, you redesign the study to engineer a scenario where the risk to the control group is minimsed. The plane is landed.

And then, because you've removed the main reason to use a parachute, you find that parachutes have "no effect" on mortality or injury.

The constraints of performing an ethical RCT guarantee this result. A result that we obviously know is dangerously wrong to extrapolate to the real-life uses of parachutes.

Now here's the thing: The people insisting that "evidence-based medicine" says we need RCTs of trans healthcare know this is what they're doing. It's extremely well established that you can abuse these "standards" to engineer incorrect results.

*10 seconds before*