No

Wouldn't that imply that you know that there are no other intelligent life forms in the universe?

Nowadays the hyphen is the only easy dadh to type

That's not true in general. I personally use the German Extended (E1) layout (when I'm not on mobile) and the em dash is super easy to type. There are also lots of other custom layouts used by people who care about typesetting.

Even people that don't internationally care about typesetting sometimes use them because their tool (like Word and some CMS systems) automatically replace hyphens in specific places with em dashes, or substitute straight double quotes with the correct quotation marks (depending on which country you are from)

More veggies and less fruit; too much sugar.

That's not why JS is a big pile of crap. It's because the language was not thought through at the beginning (I don't blame the inventors for that) and because of the web it spread like wildfire and only backwards compatible changes could be made. Even if with all your points in mind the language could be way nicer. My guess is that once wasm/wasi is integrated enough to run websites without JS (dom access, etc.) JS will be like Fortran, Cobol and Telefax - not going away any time soon, but practically obsolete.

No he doesn't and yes he does are not argument. You are clearly both stupid.

I had the exact same idea, so the detective is probably looking there as well.

https://www.fontspace.com/unicode/analyzer

There is a leading space in the string itself, so OP is either a top tier troll or put in no effort at at and either way deserves the hate 😄

Standards are as mentioned in the article often extra careful to prevent confusion and thus often stricter than widespread conventions with things they allow and don't allow.

a/b*c is not ambiguous because no widespread convention would treat it any other way than (a/b)*c.

But you can certainly try to proof me wrong by showing me a calculator that would evaluate 6/2*3 to anything but 9.

So if there is not a single calculator out there that would come to a different result, how can it be ambiguous?

Update: Standards are rule-books for real projects to make it simpler to work together. It's a bit like a Scrabble dictionary. If a word is missing in the official Scrabble dictionary, it doesn't automatically mean that it's not a real word, it just means that it wouldn't be allowed to play that word in official Scrabble tournaments.

Same with (ISO) standards. Just because the standard forbids it doesn't mean it's not widespread or forbidden generally. It's only forbidden in a context where all participants agreed to follow the standard.

It's practically impossible to do that because (applied) mathematics is such a diverse field and there is no global authority (and really can't be).

Math notation is very similar to natural languages what you are proposing is a bit like saying we have an ambiguity in english with the word "bat". It can mean the animal or the sport device. To prevent confusion the oxford dictionary editors just decide that from now on "bat" only refers to the animal and not the club. Problem solved globally? Probably not :-)

What you can do/try is to enforce some rules in smaller groups, like various style guides and standards are trying to do. For example it's way simpler for a university to enforce certain conventions and styles for the work they and their students produce. But all engineers in Belgium couldn't care less what a university in India is thinking about math notations.

For real projects that involve many people there are typically industry standards that are followed that work a bit like in the university example and is enforced by the participants of the project.

Regarding your first part in general true, but in this case the sheer amount of calculators for both conventions show that this is indeed intended behavior.

Regarding your second point I tried to address that in the "distributive property" section, maybe I need to rewrite it a bit to be more clear.