In case you aren’t joking, I believe the relevant statement is that acceleration and “a change in velocity over time” are the same thing.

If you imagine driving a car forward in a straight line, pressing the gas will make you accelerate (velocity becomes more forward). Pressing the brake will also make you accelerate (velocity becomes less forward). Turning the steering wheel will also make you accelerate (velocity points more to the left/more to the right).

While I’m at it, you can do physics computations in a rotating frame of reference, but it produces some fictious forces, and gets really wacky quickly. An easy example is that anything far enough away from the axis of rotation is moving faster than the speed of light.

I built a scale model to prove the haters wrong. I had to tilt the platform a little for it to overcome friction, but once I did, the car rolled forward until it hit a wall.

Real everyone-eats-ice-cream-and-dances-all-day hasn’t been tried either. Just because you describe a set of circumstances doesn’t mean those circumstances can exist, and it especially doesn’t mean they can be stable long term.

Scarcity is a fact of nature. You cannot rationally distribute scarce things without knowing people’s preferences, so you either need to continuously solve the economic knowledge problem (which requires a huge state apparatus, which will be taken over by a dictator), or a means of exchanging goods between people to better suit their preferences (at which point you have invented capitalism).

Like today’s computer scientists, early biologists sucked at inventing new words, and simply reused existing ones. “Berry” in common language is a small, usually sweet and edible, fruit. Strawberries, blueberries, blackberries and raspberries are all berries.

Then biologists came along and decided, actually, strawberries, raspberries and blackberries are out, but watermelon and bananas are in, because the size of the fruit doesn’t matter, only the placement of the seeds decides whether something is a proper, scientific berry.

A similar thing has happened with “fruit” and “vegetable”, where scientific fruits include cucumbers, eggplants, and pumpkins. Luckily, all three of these are also berries.

I say we ignore them, and use words to mean sensible things.

I don’t know what causes the difference, I just compared the first nutrition breakdown of rendered pork fat I could find to a recent USDA publication. I’m under the impression that we mostly grow different breeds of pork, on bigger farms, using a more consistent food blend, so pretty much everything has changed in that time.

There’s a lot of answers here, but I don’t think anyone said the magic words. To reseason cast iron, you need an oil high in poly-unsaturated fatty acids. Those are the kind that can chain together, and form a good polymer coating.

The thing that trips me up most about this subject is that 140 years ago, pork fat was very good for seasoning cast iron. Today, it isn’t, because the composition of the fat has changed significantly.

The best seasoning coats will be thin, not appear or feel oily, give the pan a dark color slightly more glossy than an eggshell, and resist mild detergents, metal spatulas, and heat high enough to sear a steak on. If you have a layer of loose stuff in the pan, that’s just a layer of gunk, and is probably adding some weird flavors to anything you cook.

The (really, really, really) big problem with the internet is that so much of it is garbage data. The number of false and misleading claims spread endlessly on the internet is huge. To rule those beliefs out of the data set, you need something that can grasp the nuances of published, peer-reviewed data that is deliberately misleading propaganda, and fringe conspiracy nuts that believe the Earth is controlled by lizards with planes, and only a spritz bottle full of vinegar can defeat them, and everything in between.

There is no person, book, journal, website, newspaper, university, or government that has reliably produced good, consistent help on questions of science, religion, popular lies, unpopular truths, programming, human behavior, economic models, and many, many other things that continuously have an influence on our understanding of the world.

We can’t build an LLM that won’t consistently be wrong until we can stop being consistently wrong.

This and systemctl cat $unit are my favorites.

I talked to one of the authors of the New American Bible, who told me the text is a mistranslation, and it’s more like “harder than putting a rope through the eye of a needle”, which would’ve been an idiom familiar to the fishers in the area.

It means “impossible”, which is suitable because the things Jesus called for you to do make a rich person into a not rich person, as far as material wealth goes.

So you’re saying my proposed imperial units depend on where you are, and who is using them, for what purpose? That just sells me on them as imperial units even more. :)

Thank you for the details.

From smallest to biggest:

Bits (basic unit)

Bytes (8:1 reduction)

Words (4:1 reduction)

KiB (32:1 reduction)

MiB (1024:1)

GiB (1024:1)

TiB (1024:1)

PiB (1024:1)

A normal amount of porn (237:1)

I’m a Senior Computer Software Developer Programming Engineer, or SCSDPE (which is pronounced Skuzz-Deep), and I will be irreparably miffed if you get it wrong.

For your convenience, I also accept “that guy that sits weirdly close to the water fountain”, “hey”, and “paid keyboard user”.

They’ve finally found their silicon mates.

Robert Downey Jr is the name brand, Tony Stark is the generic name. Hollywood producers certify there’s no functional differences between the two products.

“You wouldn’t put on a tricorn hat, would you?”

I actually would, if I could find a nice one…

“…and leave your job to sail the seas?”

… That’s an option? I didn’t even consider-

“And you certainly wouldn’t drink rum, and fire cannons, and carry a saber and tell silly parrot related puns.”

buys a tricorn hat

I’m sorry having to be the one to say it, but she’s obviously lying. The officers have body cameras, so when she and her father don’t get a huge settlement from this, that’s why.

Last time I tried freecad, the geometry solver was incorrect, so it would sometimes create two (or more) shapes from a fully constrained part. Since learning about openSCAD, I’ve seen no reason to give it another try.

I’m ignoring many factors for the sake of being able to answer. There are some kinds of heating, especially using burning fuels that are nearly 100% efficient, but we don’t know why it needs to get to that temperature, or how long it needs to stay that hot - so even if the transfer of heat is 100% efficient, this computation may underestimate the actual needs.

You have 3 liters of water heating up by 50 degrees celsius. It takes 4184 joules to heat 1 liter of liquid water by one degree Celsius, so it takes 627600 joules to heat 3 liters by 50 degrees. Dividing by 40000 joules per gram of fuel, it will take 15.69 grams of fuel per minute. Finally, for significant digits, we have to round to 16. grams of fuel per minute.

Edit: for most sciency uses, 1.6 times 10^1 grams of fuel per minute is likely the preferred way to write that.

I’ve known a lot of math people, and /on average/ I think they’re more capable of programming useful code than the other college graduate groups I’ve spent a lot of time working with (psychology, economics, physics) /on average/.

That said, the best mathematicians I’ve known were mostly rubbish at real programming, and the best programmers I’ve known have come out of computer engineering or computer science.

If you need a correct, but otherwise useless implementation, a mathematician is a pretty good bet. If you need performance, readability, documentation, I’d look elsewhere most of the time.