In mathematics and computer programming, the order of operations is a collection of conventions about which arithmetic operations to perform first in order to evaluate a given mathematical expression.

These conventions are formalized with a ranking of the operations. The rank of an operation is called its precedence, and an operation with a higher precedence is performed before operations with lower precedence. Calculators generally perform operations with the same precedence from left to right,[1] but some programming languages and calculators adopt different conventions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations

With math, you can invent your own notation if you like. If it makes it easier to describe certain problem. This is done often. And if it makes sense, you can also change the order of operation. You can even introduce new operations.

The notation you learn in school is just a common one, but other notations are equally valid and can be useful.

Therefore this kind of question is not a pure math question, but rather it depends on what kind of conventions or notations people want to use.

The context is what allows the math question to have a single answer. The notation is just your chosen way towards that solution and to communicate the steps to that solution to others.

The rules of math itself are much more fundamental and they don’t care about how people decided to write formulas down.

Those aren’t ‘rules of maths’, because math would work with other orders of operations as well. They are conventions. Other cultures could have different conventions and it would work as well.

Basically, I couldn’t claim capitalism is perfect, but whether replacing the system or not, you need to address the greedy human culture beneath it.

Chicken, egg.

System changes leads to cultural change leads to system change.

You cannot just change the culture, but you can change the system.

No. There are no perfect systems. Every system will require constant vigilance and adaption to work. The point is that the goal of disincentivizing greedy behavior is actually clearly stated and done.

I really don’t think it’s just “economic culture” as you’ve described.

I didn’t say it is just economic culture that is the issue here…

I really don’t think people are accurate about the feeling that “Obtaining and hoarding valuable things” is an act borne out of the laws of our current society.

Also true, but what is? Is your point that it is human nature? I would disagree there, humans have the capacity of acting against greed and selfishness. Question is why they are so often acting greedy and selfish then?

My answer would be two options with both apply to some degree, and there might be more:

1. Resources are scarce and distributed non equally. So hoarding gives power over others
2. The system incentivizes greedy behavior, by it’s structure and rules. Either by actively, by giving greedy people direct rewards, or passively by not punishing greedy behavior.

Other ideas?

Destinction without difference. Government and economic culture is part of the economic system.

Z should be inverted in the top picture.

But you don’t need to misuse language to assign responsibility.

What? I am interested… How else would you assign the responsibility to people that designed something intentionally bad, if you cannot used language?

“Misuse [of] language” is a concept I cannot even begin to wrap my head around…

Do I loose the warranty if I use language in unintended ways?

It is their responsibility for breaking the system.

You just ‘misused’ language to assign responsibility to people for breaking the system.

Saying the system was always designed for this removes responsibility.

No? Responsibility is not a binary concept. Someone can kill someone else, and would be responsible for that death, and the people around that killer could also share responsibility for not noticeing their unusual behavior. And the system could also be responsible for not giving the killer the support they needed, which drove them to kill someone. And the people that designed or constructed that system could also be responsible for not caring enough about these kinds of deaths to prevent them systemically.

There is a difference is saying “I does what it does” and “what it does is per design”. The latter assigns a responsibility.

In OP Aziraphale gives socienty the responsibility to fix a broken system incrementally and Crowley gives the people in power the fault of intentionally creating a bad system and calls for revolution.

I don’t get why these kind of post crop up so often.

The answer to them doesn’t matter and these aren’t really math questions, because there is no context given. This is just endless discussions about different people having different assumptions on notation used there…

In real math, where the numbers mean something, good and consistent notation is important, but not necessary, because the order of operations or what those operations are exactly would be clear through the context of these formulas. Good notation just makes it easier to spot errors, work with formulas or to avoid confusion.

Here is what I would assume this formula could mean. Someone has 2 apples and 5 bags of apples that initially came with 8 apples each inside, but someone else ate 5 apples from each of these bags.

With this context it is pretty clear what the answer would be.

SELinux protects systems from bugs in software. Not against users with full root privileges using their own hardware.

As long as Valve is committed to an open system, without locked down bootloader like on mobile phones, it is unlikely that kernel-level anti-cheat can be implemented.

But that also means Steam Machines are unlikely to support 4K streaming from Nextflix and co. because also DRM will also only be on the level of other Linux systems.

True. But most good stuff isn’t a solution for everyone. It takes real effort to escape vendor-lockin. Bigtech made sure of that.

If something is too simple to set up or requires no set up, or comes from a for-profit company, but doesn’t cost anything, then it always suspicious.

I am just saying that the issue is not with passkey itself, but the individual implementations and that google/twitter/etc. is pushed towards regular users.

Critiquing passkey because vendor-lockin is like critiquing HTML for allowing ads.

True. But I would say that this isn’t an issue intrinsic with passkey. Many people don’t have time/energy or the attitude to think critically about technology and are herded towards Google/X-corp/etc with offers of convenience and because they are often the only offered choice on the web sites. But from the POV of passkey they just act as a password manager.

I use them with bitwarden and a self hosted vaultwarden. If my phone breaks, no issue. If my server breaks, I got local backups… Keys are stored encrypted in a postgres database for which I have access, if I need to restore it. No lock-in issue or risk of loosing access when one or two devices break.

A better, well defined API for password managers to insert login information to the site compared to text boxes.

I self host vaultwarden, and use bitwarden clients everywhere. Passkeys are stored there

Passkeys to me, are a better way to insert login information. Some developers don’t think of passwords getting automatically filled in, so this autofill sometimes breaks. Passkeys might be a improved interface to integrate password managers. Also, sometimes 2FA keys from my bitwarden client gets copied into the clipboard, which sometimes overwrites the stuff I wanted to preserve in there. This does not happen with passkeys.

I store the passkeys in my self hosted vaultwarden, they are a good replacement for auto inserting random passwords via text boxes.

You can? At least I do that. I host vaultwarden myself and store the passkeys there.

Passkeys to me are just a better way to autofill in login data.

Na. Even privatly traded companies can enshittify when it gets inherited to people not sharing the same vision as the one that made the company successful.

If you want to prevent enshittification more long term, convert it to a non-profit cooperative, with a work ethic that promotes providing the best service over short term profit.