this image? we have every reason to think it is a cucumber, like it was made in clay models in burials period, it's painted green, it's on the small side of things (9.6 cm or 3 3/4 inch)

oh right and it was placed on a model offering table with small model bread and drinking cup

Outraged by the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, a wilderness survival trainer spent years undercover climbing the ranks of right-wing militias. He didn’t tell police or the FBI. He didn’t tell family or friends. The one person he told was a ProPublica reporter.

It's 1700s race science. A german scientist called Johann Blumenbach developed a race theory where he said there were 3 main races of humans (warning for slurs and severe racism in the following as you can guess from a race scientist), in order of the superiority according to this classification: Caucasoid, Mongoloid, then lastly Negroid. He had measured some georgian skulls and thought it was beautiful, he thought that since europeans are superior he and the others must somehow be connected to the caucasian skull he measured, that they somehow must be Caucasoid too as a superior race

The theory was that the Europoid people (despite the disconnect between Caucasus and Europe he thought they had the connection of being "superior", so caucasian and europoid were used interchangeably) were closest to God's image of man, and the lower forms were the "degenerated" forms. And there were lower forms such as, quote from the source:

"Africans, excluding light-skinned North Africans, as “Ethiopians” or “black.” He divided non-Caucasian Asians into two separate races: the “Mongolian” or “yellow” race of Japan and China, and the “Malayan” or “brown” race, which included Aboriginal Australians and Pacific Islanders. And he called Native Americans the “red” race."

US later adopted this classification in 1790 in order to prevent anyone not correctly white from becoming a citizen. But there was a problem for the US: The original definition included people from the Caucasus and some people of SWANA (a surrounding area of caucasus) as "Caucasoid' too. But they only wanted Northern and western europeans, so they changed the definition so that caucasians and surrounding people weren't counted as caucasians either

Later into the increased migrations of 20th century, they needed to make sure only the correct whites were accepted again, so Eugenicists divided Caucasians into four ranked subraces: Nordic, Alpine, Mediterranean, and Jew (Semitic). Nordics were ranked highest intellectually and morally and favored in the system which, and this active use kept the classification terms popular.

This thrift shop used to have jeans for like $3 and now everything is priced like it's new

Hear about a cool new thrift shop in town and you check it out and it's actually "vintage upcycling and consignment" so the shredded jorts are $250 on sale

This place used to get cool stuff but the tiktok haul resale people found it and now anything decent is snapped up and immediately resold for like $500 online

"Ooh this is cute" and then you check and it's shein

"Ooh this is cute" and then you check and it's Harry P*tter

The jacket of your dreams is in your price range but it's 3 sizes too small

Your absolute FAVOURITE thrifted item finally wears out beyond salvation and when you do research to maybe find a replacement it's been discontinued since 1983

Check the pockets and find used kleenex

STICKY THING

This was exactly what I was looking for but I can't get the weed remnants out

Parentheses equation is 2+2, which is 4.

Now we multiply by 2 to get 4x2 which is 8

8 DIVIDED BY 8 is 1.

8 / 2 * (2+2) = 

8/2 * (4) = 

4*4 = 16

PEMDAS

8/2*(2+2) (P = Parentheses)

8/2*(4) (M = Multiply)

8/8=1 (D = Division)

@kingoftartesoss​

M isn't in the original problem but 8÷2 still needs a resolution. You have to solve 8÷2 as-is after (2+2) no matter what.

So you're not following PEMDAS by factoring x4 into 8÷2.

So the problem is two-fold: first, order of operations as most people are taught it is a lie, and second, the original problem is written very ambiguously.

Let’s drill down into that first point.

PEMDAS! Parentheses, exponents, multiplication, division, addition, subtraction. Everyone’s taught to do operations in that order! Except that’s not really right. As a math teacher of mine put it, “it works for now, but you’ll find out I was lying in a few years.”

The problem is that multiplication and division are the same operation, and addition and subtraction are also the same operation. Division is really just multiplying by a fraction, and subtraction is just adding a negative. With that in mind, it doesn’t necessarily make sense to do some multiplication arbitrarily early in the problem before the rest! As a result, here’s the bottom line for that point:

Both 1 and 16 are right.

How can that be?

Well, that brings me to the second point: the expression is written very ambiguously, so as to maximize confusion! It’s also why I don’t like using the division symbol when a fraction will do just nicely.

Observe two other ways we could write this expression:

The first one resolves to 8/8, which is 1. The second resolves to 4(4), which is 16. Both are right, only because the original expression is vague.