People Twitter

10271 readers

453 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

Mark NSFW content.
No doxxing people.
Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
No international politcs
Be excellent to each other.
Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major celebrity, figure or any politician. If you replace the "x" at their site with xcancel (so it beomes xcancel.com), and you're not on mobile, it will save video. https://web.archive.org/save is another great option. Archive.is is no longer recommended because they remove/alter content.
If a tweet (or similar) makes a statement of fact, either mark it as "satire" in the body or provide the original source link backing up the statement

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

SendMeYourTaTas@sh.itjust.works

pelespirit@sh.itjust.works

1116

The value of x (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 2 years ago by sjmarf@sh.itjust.works to c/whitepeopletwitter@sh.itjust.works

138 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I mean to me it looks like there are two connected triangles with an implied 3rd where x is the degree measure of its apex. IFF that is true, them you can assume 180 degree totals for each triangle individually and one for the "outer triangle".

I totally get it if you take the perspective that none of it is to scale, but it seems unreasonable to me that a straight line is not a straight line connecting the two triangles shown. Either it's unsolvable from that premise, or you can assume 3 triangles that compose one larger triangle and solve directly. And it seems weird to share something that is patently unsolvable.