> In several EU western countries the most common gynelogical surgery act is re-building the hymen (so that the woman can pretend she's a virgin once she marries, often forcibly by her family).
You'd be getting practically the same result. If someone is too lazy to write their own commit messages they're definitely too lazy to write this blog post manually.
I think modern fonts include hinting software and stuff like that.
If you produced a bunch of screenshots of the output at various sizes, and then asked an LLM to convert to ttf or whatever, I’m guessing that’d be OK. I’m not an expert in this stuff though.
Brand fonts are typically a specific license by the original creator of the font, often together with some adjustments (e.g. big companies often need additions for global markets that were not in the smaller original font)
Try to understand 3.1-3.4 in this paper, and you'll find that the correctness proof doesn't prove anything.
In particular, when they define <_c, they do this in terms of rule1, rule2, and rule3, but these are defined in terms of <_c, so this is just a circular definition, and therefore actually not a definition at all, but just wishful thinking. They then prove that <_c is a total order, but that proof doesn't matter, because <_c does not exist with the given properties in the first place.
It's likely that "knows" has no separate definition, but is used in some definition of "operator". If so, then "operator" should probably connect to "know", and "knows" shouldn't appear in the graph at all. But calling that edge case "broken" is a bit harsh, I think.
Can you source that claim?
reply