AdrianTheFrog

AdrianTheFrog, 1 month ago

Time machines don’t exist and (as far as we know) cannot exist. Therefore, we can say they work however we want. If you can travel back in time, surely you can do that while remaining close to an arbitrary point of reference.

AdrianTheFrog, 1 month ago

My school in the US had that too, but I don’t think any of the teachers even knew about it because they never used it.

AdrianTheFrog, 1 month ago

you could be rendering, simulating, running virtual machines

On a phone? I guess you could, although 4gb is probably enough for any video game that any amount of people use.

AdrianTheFrog, 1 month ago

There’s like photogrammetry and stuff that happens on phones now!

No, the photogrammetry apps all use cloud processing. The LIDAR ones don’t, but that’s only for Apple phones and the actual mesh quality is pretty bad.

AdrianTheFrog, 1 month ago

It sounds a lot more cost effective to get a used mini-pc than a flagship phone for any sort of server stuff.

AdrianTheFrog, 1 month ago

Their CPUs are actually really good now, when the apps are actually optimized for them. Especially in single core, they are very competitive with top Intel or AMD chips while being way more power efficient.

ex: in Geekbench 5.1 single core the M2 max gets 1967 points (85%) compared to 2311 points from the 7950X3D and 2369 from the 14900k. The M2 max (12 cores (8 p + 4 e), 12 threads) can draw a maximum of 36 watts while the 7950X3D (16 cores, 32 threads) can draw around 250 watts, and the 14900k (16 cores (8 p + 16 e), 32 threads) can draw around 350 watts.

Apple’s GPUs are definitely lacking though, in terms of performance.

AdrianTheFrog, 1 month ago

It’s basically just greenwashing. They pretend to be into renewables and recycling only when it doesn’t disincentivize people from buying the newest product. Ex: iPhone trade in for recycling - Yes, they do recover some raw material but you can only do it if you’re buying a new iPhone with that credit, and its probably also an attempt to keep cheap used iPhones off of the market.

AdrianTheFrog, 1 month ago

I think it would be a lot more trouble than it’s worth to have to move all of the overhead power lines up. It’s easier to just join 2 trams together as a longer tram.

AdrianTheFrog, 1 month ago

first 10 random words (from a list of 300k english words): drinkproof (?), meaningless, polarize, unwindowed, trapunto, hangman, nobbut, hotmouthed, organises, tetramorphism

AdrianTheFrog, 1 month ago

It’s probably both though.

AdrianTheFrog, 1 month ago

I watched the first couple episodes and stopped because everyone was just so much more annoying than they were in the books.

AdrianTheFrog, 1 month ago

They would only die if it crashed/tipped over. The image says the train would stop safely, so I assume the friction and center of mass are low enough to prevent it from tipping.

AdrianTheFrog, 1 month ago

The gap between the wheels in the trolley in the image is much smaller than the gap between the tracks in the image. Still, depending on the amount of friction of the road surface and the wheels, it could either stop safely, tip over and kill people inside, or keep going and run over everyone. I assume it isn’t going that fast though because that turn is very sharp and the trolley would derail itself on that turn if it was going at speed.

AdrianTheFrog, 1 month ago

It’s hard to say because all of the figures come from different places, and the news articles always like to say the longer figures to gather more attention.

ex: There won’t be another eclipse over Ohio for ___ years vs There won’t be another eclipse over the continental U.S. for ___ years vs There won’t be another eclipse anywhere in the world for ___ years

AdrianTheFrog, 1 month ago

1. 737s/A320s are cheap and reliable (and blended wing still needs a lot of R&D)
2. The U.S. govt. doesn’t want to pay for high speed rail, and it is worse for long distances or crossing bodies of water
3. Blimps are slow and expensive

AdrianTheFrog, 1 month ago

Overall incidents this year are lower than the last couple of years, across all of aviation. I can’t find much up to date info on Boeing specifically, but as of 2022 accidents were still roughly going down.

AdrianTheFrog, 1 month ago

Yes.

Internet access is available in North Korea, but is only permitted with special authorization. It is primarily used for government purposes, and also by foreigners … Online services for most individuals and institutions are provided through a free domestic-only network known as Kwangmyong, with access to the global Internet limited to a much smaller group.

Wikipedia

AdrianTheFrog, 1 month ago

The problem is, when working with electronics, you can have a great screwdriver but it won’t help if the screws in the device are very cheap (and probably partially stripped already from someone opening it previously).

AdrianTheFrog, 1 month ago

I haven’t had any completely fail yet, but I’ve seen some come worryingly close. I don’t really have all that much experience, but from what I’ve seen it just doesn’t seem like the most reliable design.

AdrianTheFrog, 1 month ago

The real problem was just the person making it being too cheap/lazy to do any sort of safety certification on the submarine (and also picking the cooler sounding material over the one best suited to build a submarine). Don’t blame it on logitech.

AdrianTheFrog, 1 month ago

There are more lemmy servers hosted in the U.S. than any other country, although they certainly don’t make up the majority. IDK about users though.

AdrianTheFrog, 1 month ago

Yes, but we have to embrace false dichotomies, because the only alternative is cannibalism.

(xkcd 2592)

AdrianTheFrog, 1 month ago

Honestly it just feels weird, but its more rational definitely than killing the same animals and throwing away their skin when you have a use for it.

AdrianTheFrog, 1 month ago (edited 1 month ago)

the number 5 has no inherent meaning behind it other than the convention of how we interpret it

Again, not a convention, a rule of how to interpret it. You can’t just decide to interpret 5 as four, or again, you end up with wrong answers. The rules of Maths prevent you from getting wrong answers. You found that out yourself when you tried to do addition first in 2+3x4.

It’s only a wrong answer if you use the same expression you would with the standard order of operations. And I’m not saying we can randomly start interpreting 5 as four, just that there is no law of the universe that makes 5 look like that, and we could theoretically (not practically ofc) switch the definitions of the symbols 5 and 4 if we did it all at once and revised old math expressions to match the new standard. Just as there is no reason the letters “bike” mean what they do other than that’s what someone decided to call it, there is no reason the order of operations is what it is other than that is how someone decided to write it.

Scratch doesn’t even have an order of operations. You can still do math in it.

I’m not saying you can take any expression and get the same answer by doing addition before multiplication. I’m saying you can take any problem and get the correct answer by doing addition before multiplication. In your milk example, that means I would use the expression 2+(3x4) because 2+3x4 is no longer the correct expression needed to solve the problem.

(For an example of my distinction of the words “expression” and “problem”, “(4x)+2” is an expression, and “I start with 2 litres of milk. For every dollar I spend, I get 4 more liters of milk. How much milk do I have?” is a problem.)

My argument also relies on a distinction between the language of modern math and the concept of doing math, defining math as the dictionary definition of “The study of the measurement, properties, and relationships of quantities and sets, using numbers and symbols”. As you can see, this makes no mention of the notation commonly used in math. All I am saying is that you can still use numbers to solve problems with an altered order of operations, or by altering any part of the system of notation.

Perhaps seeing how I could solve a problem with a different order of operations will help illustrate my argument:

Problem: 2 cars approach an interchange at a 90 degree angle to each other. Car A approaches the station from 15 meters away at 30 meters/second and Car B approaches the station from 50 meters away at 20 meters/second. How fast is the distance between the cars decreasing?

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/a01d746a-6df5-4a57-b602-e03afe743a81.jpeg

Answer: the rate of change of the distance between the cars is approximately -27.777 meters per second.

As you can see, I used my altered math notation to find the correct answer. I can still solve a real-world problem with this notation, but the same expressions you would use before may not work now.

AdrianTheFrog, 1 month ago

I"m beginning to wonder if you are willfully misunderstanding my point. Or perhaps you have sunk so much time into this argument you assume I must be wrong. Take another look at my third and fifth paragraphs. I promise, I am not trying to say what you think I’m trying to say.

I see you putting brackets around the multiplication to make sure it gets done first - same as if you hadn’t used brackets at all! It’s the exact same notation we use now, just with some redundant brackets added to it! And, predictably, you left the addition for last.

All I did was use the expression necessary to evaluate correctly with the altered order of operations. There are, in fact, times when you can remove brackets that you would otherwise need, for example (x+4)(x-2) would no longer need brackets. The fact that “old” expressions often have to be written with new brackets to evaluate correctly with an altered order of operations is something I fully understand. The presence of brackets where there would be none otherwise does not invalidate my point.

15²+50²=15x15+50x50=15x65x50=48,750. But 15²+50² is 2,725 according to my calculator. Ooooh, different answers - I wonder which one is right… I wonder which one is right…???

What? I never wrote 15²+50². That is an expression you copied incorrectly. Your incorrectly copied expression has little relevance to the problem at hand.

Ok, fine… If I have 1 2 litre bottle of milk, and 4 3 litre bottles of milk - i.e. 2+3x4 - how many litres of milk do I have?

If we were doing math with an altered order of operations, the expression 2+3x4 is just simply wrong. 2+(3x4) is the expression you need. If you try to do math the same as it is with the regular order of operations, it will not work. But that does not mean math with an altered order of operations is useless. It is still math. It can still be used to “study of the measurement, properties, and relationships of quantities and sets using numbers and symbols”.

I fully understand that to correctly evaluate an expression written with a certain order of operations in mind, you need to use that order of operations. If someone wrote an expression with a different order of operations in mind, you could solve it with a different order of operations and still get what the author of the expression intended. For example, I write the equation a+2xa-2 with my order of operations, expecting you to use the same order of operations, and tell you to simplify. If you get 3a-2, that is wrong, because you used an order of operations different than the one I intended to be used to solve the problem. Imagine, for a moment, an alternate universe where everyone uses a different order of operations and a+2xa-2 simplifies to a^2-4. All I am trying to say is that that their math, with a different order of operations, would be no less useful then our math.

In summary, my only claim is that you can still use a different order of operations to manipulate numbers and solve real world problems.

Waiting on a proof from you.

I wrote and evaluated all of those expressions in my last comment with a different order of operations in mind, and was still able to come to the correct answer.