It’s not about the size of the number, it’s about presenting information in a way that the average reader can understand. The best way to do that is to present it in the way that they’re accustomed to and I don’t think I’ve ever seen scientific notation used to refer to a sum of money.

It’s great that you and I understand scientific notation, but it’s worthlesss when you’re trying to get the average person to understand what you’re writing if they don’t know it themselves.

To make myself clear, I’m not saying that scientific notation isn’t useful, I’m just saying that most people don’t understand it.

For extra credit, 74,500,000,000,000,000 aka seventy four quintillion, five hundred quadrillion.

Not really. Most people aren’t familiar with scientific or engineering notation. Writing £1,000,000, one million pounds or £1Million is a lot clearer than writing £1×10^6.

My cars odometer says 91,584, not 91.584×10^3

I keep hearing about all the tankies here, but I’ve never actually encountered one.

I don’t think that liking the ideals of communism means that you want to bury all Putin related news or even that you support Putin at all. Russia hasn’t been communist for a very long time.

Why is this getting downvoted?

Ok, if you can find an unbiased source that says it costs the UK taxpayer more than 77p per person per year, I’ll read the rest of your comment.

https://news.stv.tv/scotland/how-much-does-the-royal-family-cost-a-breakdown-of-86-3m-in-key-figures

The royal family costs the UK tax payer 77p per year, most people aren’t outraged by that.

It can be argued that they attract a considerable amount of tourism, people that travel to the UK to see the Tower of London, the King’s guards, Buckingham palace and all the rest of it. There is also the “soft power”, people around the world are for some reason obsessed with the UK’s royal family and it does help with influence whether you’d argue that is for better or worse.

I understand that the obscene wealth they hold during a cost of living crisis is an image problem to say the least and I don’t defend that. Such obscene wealth is awful no matter who you are and according to the times rich list, there are at least 257 residents in the UK that are more wealthy than the Royals, some of them considerably so.

For the record, I’m not for or against the UK monarchy, I’m somewhere in-between and see validity in both sides of the argument.

I think everyone knows it’s ridiculous.

For some the monarchy is a living museum, they don’t have to like it, they just find it interesting.

It’s not a new thing, I remember something called the anarchists cookbook (I think) that wasn’t too hard to find twenty years ago which is illegal to possess.

Edit: it is illegal to possess in the UK, apparently it’s legal in some other countries

I can only speak for the UK but since the 2009 banking crisis the poor have gotten poorer and the rich have gotten richer. Meanwhile the press have very successfully focused attention on to migrants.

A lot of people truly believe that they are poor, not because the richest are picking their pockets, but because the poorest are.

True, but that’s not the point. It’d clearly be unrealistic to equate the crime to things like rape or murder.

The man’s obviously sick in the head but at least didn’t attack a child irl.

It’s my understanding that it’s actually a pretty typical sentence. He’s obviously sick in the head but has been judged as little risk to children.

Murder implies intent. If the assailant, knowing they had COVID, purposefully coughed in to the face of the victim with the intent of infecting them, then you have a point. But the article does not imply that is what happened.

The hostages were hamas

Follow up question, are there any meats that aren’t edible?

I’ve heard that you shouldn’t eat the livers of predators due to poisonous amounts of vitamin A that can be built up in them, but that’s strictly offal rather than meat.

Record wettest in parts of Scotland.

BBC News - Official: Parts of Scotland had record-breaking wet summer https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cr5n7nn289do

Third recession within 12 years on the cards.

Would you reconsider your rule when the champion of every single weight division in your “one with the average testosterone content that most women have, but open to anyone that is eligible” category is a mtf trans person?

I personally don’t think it should be controversial to give people born as women some of their own spaces, especially when it simply comes down to a question of fairness.

I agree because I didn’t add anything to the topic at hand, but disagree because I wasn’t making the lowest hanging fruit comment possible.

Reddit tier comment