It can be both depending on how you handle operator precendence.

PEMDAS definitely doesn't result in 1, but in 9, since under PEMDAS multiplication and division have the same priority (and thus should resolve left-to-right). So, you should resolve to 9 (6/2(2+1) => 6/2(3) => 6/2*3 => 3*3 => 9).

However, there's also PEJMDAS, which suggests that implied multiplication has an operator precedence greater than regular multiplication/division (J for Juxtaposition). This version says you should do 6/2(2+1) => 6/(2*2 + 2*1) => 6/(4+2) => 6/6 => 1.

The issue is that there is no universal agreement on which is correct. Most textbooks don't even use the / operator, but instead rely on writing out the full fraction like ⁶⁄₂₍₂₊₁₎ or ⁶⁄₂(2+1). This removes any ambiguity there might be, and thus they don't touch on which one is actually correct.

Most (but not all) calculators these days will treat implied multiplication the same as regular multiplication, so you get 9 in the given example. Most programming languages do the same, or outright disallow implied multiplication because it only confuses people. Academics won't ever use the ambiguous notation and will make sure to remove any ambiguity by either adding parentheses or using a notation like ⁶⁄₂₍₂₊₁₎, which makes things much more clear.

Neither 9 nor 1 is wrong, the question is just stupid.

In 20 years you'll get a pill from the pharmacy to grow a new one 😋

This totally justifies Russian soldiers using a girl as a human shield after shooting her parents. Thank you for opening my eyes to this moral truth.

Also, this image mostly cites liberal media sources.

That's actually been debunked. The difference between black and white clothing is so negligible it's entirely unnoticeable. The structure of the clothing is far more important.

1 makes lawmakers more susceptible to corruption.

"Progressive roots"?

Mostly because nuclear is incredibly expensive and takes too long to build. If we want to achieve net zero anytime soon, going all-in on renewables is currently the most economically viable option.

The actual paper is an interesting read. They present an actual computational proof, stating that even if you have essentially infinite memory, a computer that's a billion times faster than what we have now, perfect training data that you can sample without bias and you're only aiming for an AGI that performs slightly better than chance, it's still completely infeasible to do within the next few millenia. Ergo, it's definitely not "right around the corner". We're lightyears off still.

They prove this by proving that if you could train an AI in a tractable amount of time, you would have proven P=NP. And thus, training an AI is NP-hard. Given the minimum data that needs to be learned to be better than chance, this results in a ridiculously long training time well beyond the realm of what's even remotely feasible. And that's provided you don't even have to deal with all the constraints that exist in the real world.

We perhaps need some breakthrough in quantum computing in order to get closer. That is not to say that AI won't improve or anything, it'll get a bit better. But there is a computationally proven ceiling here, and breaking through that is exceptionally hard.

It also raises (imo) the question of whether or not we can truly consider humans to have general intelligence or not. Perhaps we're not as smart as we think we are either.

Looking out of windows is clearly a terrorist act.

I actually remember this one being much longer. IIRC, dad starts yelling that he "won't be threatened in his own house", anon gets confused and tries to explain, mom starts yelling, he leaves the house, gf gets mad at him for even having the gun, asking how long he's been carrying it with him.

Yup, they shut it off for a couple of hours during exams so students won't cheat.

Or at least, won't cheat using the internet.

Which ethnic group is Taiwan going to be oppressing here?