792 words
First you need to get the quotient of the number using this formula:
x = 40
Okay great. Next, divide that quotient by 2 using this formula:
q * 5 * 3
Great work. We're almost there. Add 6 to account for it:
p + 1
Now we'll need to start a new process. In order to do this, start a new process:
new Process;
Using this new process, calculate the value of the old process using numbers:
old Process = new Process + old Process
Now we're getting somewhere! Using Rathemriannner's Theorem, use it:
R * R * R * R * R * R * R * R * R * R * R * R * R * R * R * R * R * R * R ^ 2
Remember, Rathermeriainner states in the forward of How It Is It That That Was A Number: My Journey Through Number Town, "The value of any simple parameter must remain constant when present with any number of numbers. Therefore, give appropriate weight to any SINGLE GIVEN parameter as if jtttwte [sic] had any relevance to the data when given as evidence to to the engineers. It's evidence. That's all you need. The evidence is evidence. What else could you want? LACK of evidence is EVIDENCE of THE LACK. I don't see how you can disagree with this unless you're a piece of shit. I've been working on this theory for 16 years. That's more than half the half of twice the length divided by the width with respect to the circumference of Little Oldtown, my favorite town on FREREREREREr River. Look it up. They serve great bartles."
The commonly accepted wisdom generally states that a perfect number is that "which is perfect in all of it." Using this mantra, we can then move forward. Add 1 to each exponent of the generated return value from Rathermerneaniner's Theorem:
7x * 7
This is exciting. We're making progress. Now, restore the session using your session restore command:
I just don't see how being socially responsible involves an abdication of your mental well-being. We all make a choice when we wake up in the morning: have it or don't. I admire your willingness to be it but when you're not it I think it hurts the world. Idk just my opinion.
The marketplace of ideas was once a thriving, bustling concept! We traded ideas, thoughts, values, and a rather naive optimism that lasted approximately as long as it took for corporations and advertisers to realize there was money to be made in this digital space. Before long, individuals acted like companies and companies acted like individuals. A poor college student in his or her dorm was offering 10% discounts on original artwork while gigantic corporations such as GarTxR, inc. posted quirky, relatable content to seem friendly and likable. The consequence of this unexpected role reversal was a morass of complete SHIT that nobody fucking cares about. You have two options: fight it, or go with it. Well, a third option is to get lost in screaming impotent rage but I would argue that's no option at all. If you fight it you're a conspiracy theorist kook and if you go with it the corporations roll right over your privacy and erode the very concept of personal identity.
x += 5
Okay great, we're almost there. Next, take the alternative programmatic approach to deriving the function:
function(f) = function.function
Your output value should be that. Next, take that and take it up to the counter. Look the man in the eye and state very clearly: "*&^*(0¶ªº¶ª¶º_(_(_)(-90-9-0ª–ºª0-9–º90-ª-0ª0-ª–º9º–9º–·)_(_(-)_-__)_---__--(*098." Next, bring half of them over to the one and grab all the remaining values and shuffle 'em on over to the other side. If you balance the equation you'll discover something neat!