Welcome to Incremental Social! Learn more about this project here!
Check out lemmyverse to find more communities to join from here!

wischi

@wischi@programming.dev

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

[Thread, post or comment was deleted by the moderator]

    •
    wischi ,

    No shit Sherlock

    wischi ,

    There are a lot of YouTubers just playing with them, but I think Jim Browning is the only one actually taking them down.

    wischi ,

    The problem is that using those tools no matter how energy efficient will add to the total amount of energy humans use, because even if an AI generates an image faster than a human could, the human still needs 100W constantly.

    This doesn't mean, that we shouldn't make it more efficient but let's be honest, more energy efficient AI just means that we would use even more AI everywhere.

    wischi ,

    Assassination Classroom (2015) ?

    wischi ,

    This also happens when the video was just uploaded recently and YouTube hasn't finished encoding all the different resolutions.

    wischi ,

    Ok if it's up for two days and still not showing better quality than something different is going on. YouTube is typically pretty fast with encoding videos and most of the time all resolutions are finished between 15min and 1h after uploading the video, so it's maybe not that in your case.

    wischi ,

    Post birth luck can fix it. Wouldn't call Eminem a winner of the birth lottery but he was definitely pretty lucky with dr dre

    wischi ,

    There is very likely some step to sit on 🤣. To empty the water you just need a hose and do the same trick people use to steal gasoline (or a pump if you want to be fast and fancy).

    wischi ,

    "Only two crates used". What's great about reinventing the wheel? A closed source project with big claims trying to reinvent everything from scratch. Nice project 🤣

    wischi ,

    Reducing the attack surface by not using well established and battle tested crates but reinventing the wheel inside this closed source project 🤣

    wischi ,

    Sounds promising

    Does it? Sounds like the exact opposite.

    wischi ,

    They won't open source it because the rust code is very likely a joke. They are proud of just using two dependencies, don't know that their "statically generated" stuff is actually called server side rendering and are hosting this stuff on a fuckin laptop.

    It's probably a project that will teach them a lot. But in practice their implementation is worthless to everybody else because they are obviously completely inexperienced.

    That said, that project is likely not worthless to them because they will probably learn a ton of stuff why it's hard to build a search engine.

    wischi ,

    That Kagi works and that Kagi doesn't write their own database engine and host the project on a laptop 🤣

    wischi , (edited )

    That's exactly what I did and never looked back. Just installed code-server + a few vs code plugins. Automatically synced via some some scripts that push and pull+merge git commits, done. No need for one of those million note taking apps. I also installed polyglot notebooks for vs code to embed code into notes.

    wischi OP ,

    Pretty obvious that you didn't read the article. If you find the time I'd like to encourage you to read it. I hope it clears up some misconceptions and make things clearer why even in those 60+ years it was always intellectually dishonest to call 1024 byte a kilobyte.

    You should at least read "(Un)lucky coincidence"

    wischi OP ,

    Yes it's the other way round. Parentheses are top priority.

    wischi OP ,

    It's actually "both". There are two conventions. One is a bit more popular in science and engineering and the other one in the general population. It's actually even more complicated than that (thus the long blog post) but the most correct answer would be to point out that the implicit multiplication after the division is ambiguous. So it's not really "solvable" in that form without context.

    wischi OP ,

    I'd would be great if you find the time to read the post and let me know afterwards what you think. It actually looks trivial as a problem but the situation really isn't, that's why the article is so long.

    wischi OP ,

    I'd really like to know if and how your view on that matter would change once you read the full post. I know it's very long and a lot of people won't read it because they "already know" the answer but I'm pretty sure it would shift your perception at least a bit if you find the time to read it.

    wischi OP ,

    What is the correct answer according to the convention you follow?

    wischi OP ,

    In this case it's actually the absence of sources. I couldn't find a single credible source that states that ÷ has somehow a different operator priority than / or that :

    The only things there are a lot of are social media comments claiming that without any source.

    My guess is that this comes from a misunderstanding that the obelus sign is forbidden in a lot of standards. But that's because it can be confused with other symbols and operations and not because the order of operations is somehow unclear.

    wischi OP ,

    I'm not sure if I'd call it the "scientific" one. I'd actually say that the weak juxtaposition is just the simple one schools use because they don't want to confuse everyone. Scientist actually use both and make sure to prevent ambiguity. IMHO the main takeaway is that there is no consensus and one has to be careful to not write ambiguous expressions.

    wischi OP ,

    Thank you very much 🫶. No it's not annoying at all. I'm very grateful not only for the fact that you read the post but also that you took the time to point out issues.

    I just fixed it, should be live in a few minutes.

    wischi OP ,

    In a scientific context it's actually very rare to run into that issue because divisions are mostly written as fractions which will completely mitigate the issue.

    The strong implicit multiplication will only cause ambiguity after a division with inline notation. Once you use fractions the ambiguity vanishes.

    In practice you also rarely see implicit multiplications between numbers but mostly between variables or variables and their coefficients.

    wischi OP ,

    👍 That was actually one of the reasons why I wrote this blog post. I wanted to compile a list of points that show as clear as humanity possible that there is no consensus here, even amongst experts.

    That probably won't convince everybody but if that won't probably nothing will.

    wischi OP ,

    Your example with the absolute values is actually linked in the "Even more ambiguous math notations" section.

    Geogebra has indeed found a good solution but it only works if you input field supports fractions and a lot of calculators (even CAS like WolframAlpha) don't support that.

    wischi OP ,

    Same priority operations are solved from left to right. There is not a single credible calculator that would evaluate "6 / 2 * 3" to anything else but 9.

    But I challenge you to show me a calculator that says otherwise. In the blog are about 2 or 3 dozend calculators referenced by name all of them say the same thing. Instead of a calculator you can also name a single expert in the field who would say that 6 / 2 * 3 is anything but 9.

    wischi OP ,

    "when in doubt" is a bit broad but left to right is a great default for operations with the same priority. There is actually a way to calculate in any order if divisions are converted to multiplications (by using the reciprocal value) and subtractions are converted to additions (by negating the value) that requires at least a little bit of math knowledge and experience so it's typically not taught until later to prevent even more confusion.

    For example this:
    6 / 2 * 3 can also be rewritten as 6 * 2⁻¹ * 3 and because multiplication is commutative you can now do it in any order for example like 3 * 6 * 2⁻¹

    You can also "rearrange" the order without changing the meaning if you move the correct operation (left to the number) with it (should only be done with explicit multiplication)

    6 / 2 * 3 into 6 * 3 / 2 (note that I moved the division with the 2)

    You can even bring the two to the front. Just remember that left to the six is an "imaginary" (don't quote me ^^) multiplication. And because we can't just move "/2" to the beginning we have to insert a one (empty product - check Wikipedia) like so:

    1 / 2 * 6 * 3

    This also works for addition and subtraction

    7 + 8 - 5

    You can move them around if you take the operation left to the number with it. With addition the "imaginary" operation at the beginning is a plus sign and the implicit number you use is zero (empty sum - check Wikipedia)

    8 - 5 + 7

    or like this

    0 - 5 + 8 + 7

    because with negative numbers you can use the minus sign to indicate negative numbers you can even drop the leading zero like this

    -5 + 8 + 7

    That's not really possible with multiplication because "/2" is not a valid notation for "1/2"

    wischi OP ,

    I still don't see a number ;-) but you can take a look at the meme to see other people with math degrees shouting at each other.

    wischi OP ,

    The calculator section is actually pretty important, because it shows how there is no consensus. Sharp is especially interesting with respect to your comment because all scientific Sharp calculators say it's 1. For all the other brands for hardware calculators there are roughly 50:50 with saying 1 and 9.

    So I'm not sure if you are suggesting that thousands of experts and hundreds of engineers at Casio, Texas Instruments, HP and Sharp got it wrong and you got it right?

    There really is no agreed upon standard even amongst experts.

    wischi OP ,

    @Prunebutt meant 4.5! and not 4.5. Because it's not an integer we have to use the gamma function, the extension of the factorial function to get the actual mean between 1 and 9 => 4.5! = 52.3428 which looks about right 🤣

    wischi OP ,

    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.

    wischi OP ,

    All calculators that are listed in the article as following weak juxtaposition would interpreted it that way.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • incremental_games
  • meta
  • All magazines
    •