Bianchini-an, according to Google. Sounds like one of Luciom's people.

https://www.livescience.com/physics-...om-1440s-italy

I'm more of a craig person.

So... what's your point?

And also, what was your previous account? Lemme find out washoe learnt how to spell and laid off the youtoobz and ****.

Gregory Illinivich

Oh right. Actually, checks out, similar styles etc.

Why did you self ban? That came out of the blue.

The correct timing on basically every factory small block chevy for every year is 4 degrees btdc.

Marissa could have just yawned and said 4 degrees but people always Dunning Kruger themselves when it comes to cars so she couldn't help herself.

Low EQ.

You remind me of an ex I had. Everything with her had to have a reason. Why don't I like rice? I had to give specific reasons, as in, combinations of flavours that made me dislike it. If I couldn't articulate my reasoning, it was invalid. "Taste" had to be justified. I don't ****ing know, I just don't like the stuff.

She was also heavily into the Meyers-Briggs stuff. Like, she would come home from work and say "my new boss is INTP". Then 2 days later - "I've revised it, he is ENTP". And like this for about a month. Eventually I said "you know the whole point of that is for it to be prescriptive. If you just want to describe someone, you can explain what they are like, you don't have to shoehorn them into a profile. If it has no predictive value and you are just revising your assessment based on observation, it's utterly worthless as a tool, and all you are achieving is blunting your assessment by pigeonholing it into one of 16 categories." She was like "oh". And... yeah, I was super fun at parties.

Anyway, all this is to say "low EQ" is just meaningless words. You felt a certain way, and you want to put a label on it. Why don't you just describe how you felt?

Can’t imagine why someone wouldnt want to talk about how they felt on a forum where people deride each others “fee fees” in order to belittle each other.

Sounds like a lack of imagination on your part.

Now you’re hurting my feelings.

We are not so different after all.

I would hope so. I could easily teach it to Marjory Taylor Greene.


When I was eleven.

Lol no you couldn't. You can't teach it to anyone who doesn't understand how to foil out (x+a)^2. I doubt that chick can add to 11 without taking her socks off.

Me too (not MTG as I dont know who that is. Could with anyone like rococco and far less capable, Even d2, probably)

I did that at 15. It was in SMP book X or Y.

Doubtful I could do it now though lol.

Anyway, as I later realised when I grew up, maths is not the sole indicator of intelligence. It might not even be a good indicator of it.

Basically, girl Playbig2000.

Anyway, somehow I doubt that either of you two geniuses who couldn't find an elementary generalisable proof of the digit sum divisibility by 3 fact are going to be teaching anyone about deriving any quadratic formulas by completing any squares.

Yes but you're a genius

The great thing about the way we did modern maths at primary school was we could go at our own pace on most of it.

for some treason I'm thinking Flecther book 13 but it was a very long time ago. I still recall completing the square being an 'ooo that's neat' moment

I'm sure you could relearn it very quickly. It's not as difficult as d2 finds it.

You must be so insecure to have to keep boasting like this.

especially with that dog of his

You jest but two of us were studying to take the A level early when someone joined us. She was two years younger than us and had done the O level in primary school. lol. Kate was brilliant, obviously.

I bumped into her again a few years later at a wedding, after she’d been through Oxford. I asked her what the finals were like and she pulled a face, and said really hard but some people had finished the paper in half the time and walked out.

There are levels to these things.

oh yes. Oxford maths degree is seriously high standard. Some still find that easy.

but completing the square is at the starting line