@LukasRotter What answer were you thinking of? I wasn't trying to build in a deliberate red herring this time, although in the title I mentioned as an afterthought a couple of things you might think it is.
@BeastlyGerbil No, but the title is (like the original Hamlet quote) not a description but an instruction: it's you who should be a borrower but not a lender, rather than the thing being described.
I didn't think X would actually give you money if you give them Y. I thought they just accepted pure donations because their main Ys are from vendors anyway.
I'm not entirely sure how much of the way these things work is country-specific. That might explain why @Beastly was the one to answer, coming from the same country as me.
@BeastlyGerbil Yeah, I was just going to say that :-D
From me you can borrow, but only for a while.
You've got to give it back or you'll pay a debt.
I won't borrow from you, that's not my style.
But you can give to me and some money you'll get.
I'm always found in academic places,
But public versions can also be found.
My stuff is stored in sort of ...
For my part I'd never have come up with score/cut without desperately searching for it after having the deadline/cutoff idea. Off seems like kind of a loose synonym for below standard. Keep in mind that I'm not a native english speaker and my judgement could be completely wrong here, so you'd get better feedback from someone else. I don't think there's any problem with the structure of the clue itself.
@Anonymus25-ReinstateMonica The bit I was saying was unfair was my initial post containing "but" which I replaced... I am not sure which part of the revised clue is actually unfair (and not just difficult... apparently)... hence me asking :)
I was more worried about the overall definition than "off", which I found surprising. Because when I got worried (that I had broken C4) and got advice, I got the same response that cutoff was fine and off was off.
It might be minor differences in usage of the words between US | UK | AU :/
Take the first 10 primes. Can you divide them into $g$ disjoint groups, such that the sum of numbers in each group is prime. In particular can you make this work for every value of $g$ in the range $[2,10]$ ?
Is it possible to divide the first $96$ primes into $𝑔$ disjoint groups, such that the sum of numbers in each group is prime, for all $1 \leq g \leq 96$ ? You will probably need a computer for this. I realize this is a lot of computations, so I will be happy to see just a few examples of $g$ whe...
There you go with some chosen words from a large group:
angel
bat
cling
dog
glass
hatchet
ice
king
knife
lamp
lancet
lion
lung
noodle
oil
parrot
pin
pipe
rainbow
rock
sand
sun
surgeon
tile
trigger
turkey
velvet
viper
Can you guess what do they have in common?
@LukasRotter RAIN DROP Copper symbolises Radium, which is RA on the periodic table. IN is obvious, inside. Morning market stocks have benn DROPping since 2020.
Of course, Candy coated is the def, which references the song.
Nope, I don't think "morning market" would be valid for DROP, it would have to be "morning market's behavior" or something like that for it to work. I was searching for the song you were referencing, and "Candy coated rain drop" has 47 views on YT so that would be evil
Oh ok now I know which song you mean. Still no
I also honestly don't understand how copper=radium. Copper would just be CU?
@Anonymus25-ReinstateMonica Head over to theguardian.com (UK newspaper) and find their crosswords. Pick an oldish one from a Monday (they tend to get harder over the course of a week). Spend at least a few minutes thinking about each clue. You may well not solve any; that's OK. Maybe note down what ideas you had. Then go to fifteensquared.net and search it for the crossword you looked at (use the crossword number); you should find a solution with explanations of all the clues. [...]
... Go through those, taking note of any indicator-words, ideas, etc., that you weren't familiar with before. Wait a day or so to let things settle in your brain. Repeat. I'm not certain that fifteensquared does literally every Guardian crossword, so you might want to search it before attempting one -- but then you will be more tempted to cheat :-).
There are books about how to solve crosswords; the ones I have on my shelf, both of which I think are pretty good, are the "Chambers Crossword Manual" and "How to Solve the Times Crossword". Working through one of those would teach you a lot.
The Chambers Crossword Manual is still in print, price ~£12 in hardback. HTSTTCC looks like it might not be. But there are quite a number of other similar books. I haven't read them and can't comment on whether they're any good, but probably some of them are.
Of course, here I'm assuming that "hate" actually means what it says. If you meant "mildly dislike, but not enough to put in a few hours' work and a couple of hours' minimum wage worth of money" then it's probably not worth doing any of that :-).
There are other useful online resources. E.g., the Guardian newspaper I mentioned above has a crossword blog, with an occasional series on "cryptic crosswords for beginners". Archive here: theguardian.com/crosswords/series/…
In eleven clues, contrary to normal cryptic clue rules, the definition part has been placed somewhere in the middle. It divides the wordplay into two separately solvable parts, indicating a place where the answer can be altered to form another, thematic word. These alterations are not written in...
Modern warfare has changed from large scale clashes of armies to suppression of civilian populations. Chemical agents that do their work silently appear to be suited to such warfare; and regretfully, there exist people in military establishments who think that chemical agents are useful tools for their cause.
Which of the following statements best sums up the meaning of the above passage: (A) Modern warfare has resulted in civil strife. (B) Chemical agents are useful in modern warfare. (C) Use of chemical agents in warfare would be undesirable
How to crack such questions what should be study technique
In my mind either nothing is correct or both B and D are correct, since both B and D rely on a weird conclusion. The explanation geeksforgeeks gives for why B is incorrect is that "there is no fact in the data justifying the usefulness of chemical agents for warfare", so D is correct because the last line mentions it. D relies on a generalization of "there exist people in..." (!= people in military...) and B apparently relies on external resources outside the context of the question.
"appear to be suited" -> "are useful" and "there exist people in" -> "people in" are both wrong conclusions IMO
@user586228 This isn't "Get Help With Standardized Test Questions: The Chatroom", this is a general chat for Puzzling-related matters and for Puzzling users to shoot the breeze
Anyone here who's better at using SEDE than I? I want to restrict my MathJax table query to exclude posts where the tables are entirely contained within spoilers (since I can't do anything for those) but I am unsure how.
@user586228 It sounds like you're asking for help on exam technique. You won't be able to find that here on SE, but there will be youtube videos and other websites that can help
Your friendly neighbourhood moderators are fairly active in chat in The Sphinx's Lair, but we realize that we can only do so much.
We would like to add some new room owners, who will inherit certain privileges to help with moderation of The Sphinx's Lair.
A room owner has the following privileges...
In the Hebrew Bible, the witch of Endor is a woman Saul consulted to summon the spirit of prophet Samuel in the 28th chapter of the First Book of Samuel in order to receive advice against the Philistines in battle after his prior attempts to consult God through sacred lots and prophets had failed (1 Samuel 28:3-25). The witch is absent from the version of that event recounted in the deuterocanonical Book of Sirach (46:19–20).
Later Christian theology found trouble with this passage as it appeared to imply that the witch had summoned the spirit of Samuel and, therefore, necromancy and magic were...
@bobble Not an expert, but I think the time you'd have to spend getting that to work is not worth it. I mean, you could write a regex that works in most cases, but at the very least it will break on things like "[spoiler ... ] [table outside spoiler] [spoiler ...]", because the BODY field is in html, which means you have to deal with start/end tag identifiers, which regex is not good at.
You could get the markdown by joining PostHistory with the text field, excluding certain typeids, but then 1) I'm not sure the text properly contains line breaks for you to match somthing like ^(?!>!).*fooand 2) the posthistory table obviously gives you multiple entries for every post, so you'd have to filter them to the last edit :)
@user586228: this isn't a room to just ask for personal tutoring, especially if you can't be bothered to even type the problem out. Mostly it's North's friends here.
same user dropped into The Grove in the middle of a conversation and posted an image of their homework
yeah, not sure a meta post is needed (though we can make one - nothing wrong with that, it's just a bit slower and i figured you wanted this to happen pretty quickly)
I think three should be enough. Do we have most of the timezones covered? You cover most of the American timezones, Gerbil and Gareth in England, Mith in Israel, and I don't know where Lukas is :p
true! my decisions were fairly arbitrary here, and i'd be happy to listen to concerns, or switch people out / add more if necessary. didn't think it was super important though
It's an essay question on the AP History tests (US, World, European) where several "documents" (treaties, ship records, diary entries, political cartoons, maps, tables, etc.) are given, along with a general prompt, and you have to corral them into an essay within 45 minutes
For 2 (or 3? I forget) of the documents you have to include an analysis of the background info as part of your argument. (Stuff like historical context, authorial intent, etc.)
Plus at least one piece of outside evidence, and a general Contextualization of the topic & historical period somewhere in the essay
I usually finished with 5-10 minutes to re-read and revise
It was my favorite part of the test
I would figure out an argument, stretch the documents into evidence, and then just bluff my way through the thing
in case anyone wants to tell me again that the DBQ seems hard, you can go have a look at the DBQ I wrote for AP World history (page 6 is instructions, page 7 the documents start)