The downside to that is the epoxy would only be surface level. You’d want to fill any cracks/checks entirely, and pouring it into the hole or flooding the whole slab would be the best way to ensure that
The downside to that is the epoxy would only be surface level. You’d want to fill any cracks/checks entirely, and pouring it into the hole or flooding the whole slab would be the best way to ensure that
I didn’t watch this the whole way through, but it might help you: https://youtu.be/E_d9hK20C94?si=TOh87hZYK79tpUAl
Id guess the alternative is to pour them one at a time? If you don’t want to flood it but you want the checks filled, that’s really the only other option, isn’t it?
But the iceberg won…
Eh, degrees can be overrated. I don’t have one and it hasn’t hindered me at all. Ultimately, it depends what kind of work you want to get into and your drive to self learn, how quick you can pick things up, and adaptability. You got this.
That’s fair, I was trying to be a bit vague since you’re learning and wanted to help point you to the solution. Went a little too vague with it 🙂
No problem bud, good luck
the signature for the input
function (that’s what it’s called instead of command) is
def input(__prompt: Any = ...) -> str
which means it’s always going to return a string.
So it starts off as a string, then becomes whatever is typed in
there’s no real way for something to do that automatically without a much more robust setup.
this snippet proves that
test_int = input('enter integer:')
print(type(test_int))
test_float = input('enter float:')
print(type(test_float))
test_str = input('enter string:')
print(type(test_str))
>> <class 'str'>
>> <class 'str'>
>> <class 'str'>
it is the responsibility of your program to validate and do whatever you want with the result, and part of that can include casting it to a different type.
The traceback should give you an idea of what’s going on, but you can test for yourself by checking the result of input:
test = input('enter number:')
print(type(test))
Another question to ask is “why did you cast ‘h’ as a float?” And what happens if you just do h + r?
Very pretty, nice job
Assume I can’t draw the conclusions you want me to. Please explain it
Arguably any revolution comes from a critical mass of the population being unhappy…
Howso
Which would be better to you? You’re a civilian somewhere - do you prefer to watch your livelyhood slowly being destroyed by your government or do you want a boom?
I’d assume the former gives you a chance to recognize it and do something, the latter is just boom.
Isn’t that part of the point? If the populace suffers, government changes are more likely
Fair enough. And I’ll give you the vs fat part. It was unfair for me to say anyway - what was in my head when I said it was that a pound of fat is considered worth 3500 kcal, which is more energy than most things in a body. It was a shit argument that mixed points.
Overall, I think my issue is just with the simple statement that “muscles are inefficient”.
The way I interpreted that statement is that “muscles waste energy”, since that’s all the context I could get from those words. I see muscles as super efficient, just like anything else in the body in that they do as little as possible compared to what is demanded. I view that type of laziness as ultimate efficiency.
Through the rest of the thread I got little additional context, so I kept on keeping on.
I still think the op of this thread didn’t get his point across very well
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2980962/
Heart & kidneys > brain > liver > skeletal muscle > adipose muscle
Pound for pound. But they all are efficient, which still goes against the original thesis
Then muscles are as efficient as they can be. They use as little energy as they need. They require energy to do things, just like everything else in your body. But they will only be as big/strong as required, nothing more - which is, believe it or not - efficiency.
The ol’ double tap never fails