Irrelevant. The article is about ROI, not about happiness. Income isn't the only measure of, I don't know, longevity, calorie intake, hair color, number of children, etc., either, but we're not talking of any of those things.
Heh, or maybe in some general sense, everything is essential, crucial, vital, constantly pivoting, etc., and these are the best words to use. Some day ChatGPT will tell me "I told you so!"
You are reversing cause and effect. You "perish" by being unable to procure grants. Grants require a publishing record. Why? Because estimating success is harder than simply looking up a list. The entire system works that way. The hiring procedures are simply following this system.
Yes? Title has no mention about specific regions. Abstract mentions specific regions. Even your comment is clickbait: you only include the title and a sentence that does not mention specific regions, despite you being aware of it, since you presumably read the abstract.
The problem with Make is people abuse it with phony targets. If there's discipline in writing Makefiles and most targets are files, Make works quite well due to the basically simple timestamp/dependency stuff (vs say cmake which I honestly find harder to debug). There are obviously a lot of patchwork fixes and the absence of logical operators drives me nuts but overall I have yet to find a better, more battle tested tool.
This is just your run of the mill STEM looking down upon other fields argument. There is rampant fraud in STEM. If anything it's harded to detect because the people who do it are better informed on how to hide it.
Okay so take the triangle made by taking the diagonal of the unit square. This has side lengths 1, 1, and c and has area 1/2.
Now, take four of these and arrange them in a square with the side length being c. It would be easier to draw this... basically you stick the right angles in the center. If this isn't clear I can draw a diagram.
Anyway, you just made a square with side length c but since its made of four of those original triangles we know that the area of it is 4 * (1/2) = c^2 so c^2 = 2.
You're using geoemetrical construction not dissimilar from proving the theorem for a != b. So it's not in the spirit of this new method. No one disputes there are easier methods to prove the theorem.
Note that when a = b we have an equilateral triangle, with area a^2/2.
Draw a line from the 90 degree angle to side c, bisecting the 90 degree angle into two 45 degree angles. This divides the original triangle into two smaller triangles.
From the fact that the sum of the interior angles of a triangle is 180 degrees, it is not hard to see that the two smaller triangles are both equilateral, with sides of a, c/2, and c/2, and the angle between their two c/2 sides is 90 degrees.
That gives c^2/8 for the area of each of the smaller triangles, or c^2/4 for the area of the original triangle which we know to be a^2/2. So c^2/4 = a^2/2 or c^2 = 2 a^2 = a^ + a^2.
