> For compatibility with other computer languages, the following classic Lua operators can be written in a more customary syntax:
Why though? What does changing `and` to `&&` actually achieve? Were people confused?
Changing the syntax seems very surface level. It's not actually fixing any problems, just making Lua no longer look like Lua. It's not going to help anyone write/learn Lua. It will make everything more complicated as there are now two ways to do everything.
This feels like adding braces to Python because you don't like indenting your code.
Creationism does not want to say "magic" and admit that God is intentionally trying to deceive people. So that's why some of these responses seem silly. I mean they are, but only because the pro-creationism arguments are silly.
> Transubstantiation means the change of the whole substance of bread into the substance of the Body of Christ and of the whole substance of wine into the substance of his Blood. This change is brought about in the eucharistic prayer through the efficacy of the word of Christ and by the action of the Holy Spirit. However, the outward characteristics of bread and wine, that is the “eucharistic species”, remain unaltered.
> Transubstantiation means the change of the whole substance of bread into the substance of the Body of Christ and of the whole substance of wine into the substance of his Blood. This change is brought about in the eucharistic prayer through the efficacy of the word of Christ and by the action of the Holy Spirit. However, the outward characteristics of bread and wine, that is the “eucharistic species”, remain unaltered.
Edit: It's a catholic thing, and it's very silly (other denominations say its symbolic)
> Presidents through out American history has believed various forms of genocide and slavery were applicable practices to modern problems; hell the current president thinks variously incredulous things.
And we shouldn't criticize them? Is that the point?
> If there's a reason why you think it can't work beyond a certain scale, say so
I'm not saying it can't work. Just that in 14 years no one has managed to factor a larger number than 21. Seemingly focus has shifted to other factoring algorithms that don't have performance improvements over conventional computing.
I'm not the one implying that Shor's algorithm will breaking encryption in "a few years from now".
What is the biggest number factored using Shor's algorithm?
Last time I looked it was very unimpressive.
Edit: It's gotten worse. 21 from 2012. "Replication of Quantum Factorisation Records with an 8-bit Home Computer, an Abacus, and a Dog" say the factorization of 35 in 2019 actually failed.
Nope.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_no...