It’s not just the psycho assholes looking for people to hammer. It’s hard to want to engage with voice chat when the general public has no fucking concept of mic discipline. Nobody wants to hear the conversations happening around you. They don’t want to hear you eating. They certainly don’t want to hear your background music. Use push to talk.

A wealthy man from Soth Africa has weird views on eugenics? I’m shocked!

So I took a browse through your comment history out of idle curiosity. You’re an “um actually” concern troll that just looks for things to argue about. It’s pretty obvious you don’t actually care. Maybe you shouldn’t feel satisfaction with being a contrarian assbag for entertainment.

Are you sure that wasn’t just an attempted joke about the phrase asexual reproduction?

Now it’s a Z:\bra

I’m pretty sure cow is the species common name and bull/heffer are the sex variant terms.

You know, like how a rooster and a hen are both still chickens?

The fuckers already raised the price to “compete with inflation”. I might have been able to accept that by itself, but with this shit added in? It really reveals their intent.

The worst part of it is that those same assholes that insisted on micro transactions will blame every other aspect of the game before admitting that it did poorly on release because of the blatant money grabbing.

I’m in my 30s, and pretty much just work and go home. I’ve got no hobbies outside the house and have never bothered pursuing a relationship. No chance in hell I’m making it to retirement age. I figure the stress of my lifestyle will grind away at my will to live and I’ll just stop eating at some point.

Yeah, the color is nice but the cut is atrocious.

The quality of the writing is questionable and the humor is juvenile, but there’s an okay story in there. I think it comes down to if you care for death games as a setting.

My argument is specifically that using no separation shows intent for which way to interpret and should not default to weak juxtaposition.

Choosing not to use (6/2)(1+2) implies to me to use the only other interpretation.

There’s also the difference between 6/2(1+2) and 6/2*(1+2). I think the post has a point for the latter, but not the former.

Honestly, I do disagree that the question is ambiguous. The lack of parenthetical separation is itself a choice that informs order of operations. If the answer was meant to be 9, then the 6/2 would be isolated in parenthesis.