JackbyDev
@JackbyDev@programming.dev
Professional developer and amateur gardener located near Atlanta, GA in the USA.
- Comment on After GOTY pull, Clair Obscur devs draw line in sand: 'Everything will be made by humans by us' 6 hours ago:
And they lied about it on the award application, but yes.
- Comment on Indie Game Awards Disqualifies Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 Due To Gen AI Usage 2 days ago:
If you’re applying for an award that asks “were toxic ingredients used at any point while making this cake” because part of the culture of the award is not using toxic ingredients, then yeah, you need to disclose that you used toxic ingredients.
- Comment on The Library of Useless 2 days ago:
I’ve seen a site like this before. It’s really difficult to put stuff in that feels right. Take the “people use 10% of their brain” think. I didn’t learn that. If anything, I learned we use all of our brain. In different classes I learned about the different parts of the brain. There was never anything like “and this is the part we don’t use.” Even in those old anti drug scare campaigns they’d show alcoholics’ brain scans about how messed up it was, and it was never “but it’s okay because we only use 10% of it.”
That was just sort of a popular inaccurate fact that the movie trailer for Lucy got stuck in everyone’s mind. Based on the context of the trailer, it seems like they imply they make some sort of super soldier drug that makes people use 100% of their brain.
So it becomes hard to really define because if schools are teaching it right but it’s still a common misconception, which side do you put it in? And I definitely still think people think people use 10% of the brain. Either way, Lucy was a 2014 movie.
- Comment on Sea Level 4 days ago:
Don’t worry, they ain’t ever gonna replace the Gregorian calendar.
- Comment on imagine 4 days ago:
Olo is a good example. It’s due to a quirk of human perception and the structure of our eyes. They basically designed a machine to try and stimulate the green detecting cones without stimulating the red detecting cones. Normally if something pure green hits your eyes, it stimulates those red cones too. So this is something our bodies are capable of perceiving but not something that we can ever perceive under normal circumstances.
Is it a “new color”? Not exactly. Did it take a good bit of imagination to conceive trying to get our brains to see it? Yes.
- Comment on 50/50 chance this is a shit post 1 week ago:
True!
- Comment on 50/50 chance this is a shit post 1 week ago:
Maybe it’s rust? Or the ugliest, worst shade of blue with gold marbling.
- Comment on Education is important. 1 week ago:
- Comment on I dunno 1 week ago:
Yes. Go tell Wikipedia that I won’t open a textbook.
- Comment on I dunno 1 week ago:
Open a textbook: en.wikipedia.org/…/Wikipedia:Guide_to_requests_fo…
Tell them, not me.
- Comment on Anon is a linguist 1 week ago:
Python is an imperative language.
- Comment on Anon is a linguist 1 week ago:
How do you tell a dog to walk? “Dog, walks!” or “Dog, walk!”
- Comment on I dunno 1 week ago:
Go tell Wikipedia about that, not me. It’s a community you can join. You very clearly feel very strongly about it. Talking to me about it isn’t going to change anything.
- Comment on I dunno 1 week ago:
Wowww. Insisting that they’re good at math. I distinctly remember learning that RPN doesn’t need parentheses in college.
reverse Polish calculators do not need expressions to be parenthesized
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_Polish_notation
But, you know, anyone can edit Wikipedia. Someone probably put that there who hasn’t opened a math textbook.
- Comment on I dunno 1 week ago:
They seem to believe that and on the 8th day God made the one true objective order of operations that all humans use and agree on.
- Comment on I dunno 1 week ago:
It’s funny that you define “ignore” as “not doing what you tell someone to” because by that definition you’ve been ignoring me too. Go edit the article if you feel this strongly.
- Comment on I dunno 1 week ago:
I haven’t ignored anything you said. I’m telling you that if you have a problem with those that you should contact them to fix them.
- Comment on I dunno 1 week ago:
Go tell Berkeley I did that.
- Comment on I dunno 1 week ago:
I did read everything you said and I do know how to do math. I hope you are able to enact the change you want to see in Wikipedia and the article. Good luck.
- Comment on I dunno 1 week ago:
Tell them, not me.
- Comment on I dunno 1 week ago:
I cannot stress this enough. If you have a problem with that, contact the author or Berkeley, not me.
- Comment on I dunno 1 week ago:
Take it up with them if you have a problem with them.
- Comment on I dunno 1 week ago:
Again, if you have a problem with Wikipedia, take it up with Wikipedia.
- Comment on I dunno 1 week ago:
Take it up with Berkeley.
- Comment on elixir of a god 1 week ago:
Even drinking two per day seems intense. I’d need to look at the caffeine content again, I think red bull is relatively less, like comparable to a coffee. But monster is a ton.
- Comment on I dunno 1 week ago:
If you believe the article is incorrect, submit your corrections to Wikipedia instead of telling me.
- Comment on I dunno 1 week ago:
Take it up with Berkeley then.
- Comment on Barn Spiders 1 week ago:
Some pig!
- Comment on I dunno 1 week ago:
- Comment on I dunno 1 week ago:
Please read this section of Wikipedia which talks about these topics better than I could. It shows that there is ambiguity in the order of operations and that for especially niche cases there is not a universally accepted order of operations when dealing with mixed division and multiplication. It addresses everything you’ve mentioned.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations#Mixed_d…
There is no universal convention for interpreting an expression containing both division denoted by ‘÷’ and multiplication denoted by ‘×’. Proposed conventions include assigning the operations equal precedence and evaluating them from left to right, or equivalently treating division as multiplication by the reciprocal and then evaluating in any order;[10] evaluating all multiplications first followed by divisions from left to right; or eschewing such expressions and instead always disambiguating them by explicit parentheses.[11]
Beyond primary education, the symbol ‘÷’ for division is seldom used, but is replaced by the use of algebraic fractions,[12] typically written vertically with the numerator stacked above the denominator – which makes grouping explicit and unambiguous – but sometimes written inline using the slash or solidus symbol ‘/’.[13]
Multiplication denoted by juxtaposition (also known as implied multiplication) creates a visual unit and is often given higher precedence than most other operations. In academic literature, when inline fractions are combined with implied multiplication without explicit parentheses, the multiplication is conventionally interpreted as having higher precedence than division, so that e.g. 1 / 2n is interpreted to mean 1 / (2 · n) rather than (1 / 2) · n.[2][10][14][15] For instance, the manuscript submission instructions for the Physical Review journals directly state that multiplication has precedence over division,[16] and this is also the convention observed in physics textbooks such as the Course of Theoretical Physics by Landau and Lifshitz[c] and mathematics textbooks such as Concrete Mathematics by Graham, Knuth, and Patashnik.[17] However, some authors recommend against expressions such as a / bc, preferring the explicit use of parenthesis a / (bc).[3]
More complicated cases are more ambiguous. For instance, the notation 1 / 2π(a + b) could plausibly mean either 1 / [2π · (a + b)] or [1 / (2π)] · (a + b).[18] Sometimes interpretation depends on context. The Physical Review submission instructions recommend against expressions of the form a / b / c; more explicit expressions (a / b) / c or a / (b / c) are unambiguous.[16]
Image of two calculators getting different answers: 6÷2(1+2) is interpreted as 6÷(2×(1+2)) by a fx-82MS (upper), and (6÷2)×(1+2) by a TI-83 Plus calculator (lower), respectively.
This ambiguity has been the subject of Internet memes such as “8 ÷ 2(2 + 2)”, for which there are two conflicting interpretations: 8 ÷ [2 · (2 + 2)] = 1 and (8 ÷ 2) · (2 + 2) = 16.[15][19] Mathematics education researcher Hung-Hsi Wu points out that “one never gets a computation of this type in real life”, and calls such contrived examples “a kind of Gotcha! parlor game designed to trap an unsuspecting person by phrasing it in terms of a set of unreasonably convoluted rules”.[12]
