It doesn’t look like AI art to me, there are no inconsistencies.

For example, the smoke in the background doesn’t simply stop after passing behind the hippo.

Ew that’s disgusting

Switzerland has:

• the lowest amount of area per km of track, except for micro nations
• a fairly low amount of population per km of track - among the top 10 if population density is considered
• lost less than 10% of tracks since its historical peak
• a majority nationalized rail network
• (as you mentioned) a fully electrified network

While I haven’t travelled in Japan by rail (or any other mode), I have been to Switzerland. From what I’ve heard, in Japan there are many smaller local stations, where an ancient train arrives a few times a day.

Whereas in Switzerland, it seems like nearly every local station has at least one train per hour.

Switzerland.

Japan has outstanding high speed rail but that’s pretty much it. Local train servives are, from what I’ve heard, subpar in terms of frequency. The share of goods transported via rail is also comparatively low.

Check out these numbers and sort by each colum, Switzerland is always near the top (for population/size adjusted values)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_rail_transport_network_size#Countries_with_active_network

Yes, but similar flaws exist for your proof.

The algebraic proof that 0.999… = 1 must first prove why you can assign 0.999… to x.

My “proof” abuses algebraic notation like this - you cannot assign infinity to a variable. After that, regular algebraic rules become meaningless.

The proper proof would use the definition that the value of a limit approaching another value is exactly that value. For any epsilon > 0, 0.999… will be within the epsilon environment of 1 (= the interval 1 ± epsilon), therefore 0.999… is 1.

That’s a tautology when talking about any potential American president

Unfortunately not an ideal proof.

It makes certain assumptions:

1. That a number 0.999… exists and is well-defined
2. That multiplication and subtraction for this number work as expected

Similarly, I could prove that the number which consists of infinite 9’s to the left of the decimal is equal to -1:

...999 = x
...990 = 10x

Calculate x - 10x:

x - 10x = ...999 - ...990
-9x = 9
x = -1

And while this is true for 10-adic numbers, it is certainly not true for the real numbers.

Only flooding has an appropriate name it seems