And, like, we have the concept of significant digits. If every mL is important, you should use more accurate measurements and present the decimals. But for most cases, rounding to the nearest whole is good enough.
-
-
Replying to @UnknownEnby @JackJackington and
Given this, there is a utility in rounding. More accurate is not always better. Sometimes it is, sometimes the speed of rounding is better. You use the right tools for the right circumstance. Let's not take the reference standards out of their vault every time we do carpentry
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @UnknownEnby @JackJackington and
First of all nothing infuriates me more than the fact that 1" thick is always means erratically anywhere from .67 to .75
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Gent_Sausage @UnknownEnby and
Well, that's how the lumber industry works Facts and forestry don't care about your feelings
3 replies 1 retweet 19 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Gent_Sausage and
It's funny that he touts his CompSci degree but then argues against rounding which is the great compromise you often make when penning code for microprocessors.
5 replies 1 retweet 8 likes -
Replying to @JackJackington @arthur_affect and
I'm not arguing against rounding. I'm arguing against the ridiculous assertion that the existence of rounding is a refutation to the value of 2 as it is to be taken
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Gent_Sausage @JackJackington and
Then you don't get the argument
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @UnknownEnby @Gent_Sausage and
We're just saying, there are times when numbers behave irrationally and 2+2=5 is, at times, valid. So you can't simply say 'lol, thats wrong, these people are ridiculous' Which is what started all this If you agree with that, why are we arguing? If not, um... why?
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @UnknownEnby @JackJackington and
I think the point of contention is whether or not the statement "there exists in abstract..." is a contradiction. I say there exists in abstract a 2 that always equals 4 when doubled, and this 2 is as real to me as any tangible 2 that's never quite 2.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Gent_Sausage @UnknownEnby and
But to materialists "real" and "abstract" are mutually exclusive, so there is only ever imperfect 2s and nothing but. Thus 2+2 never equals 4
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
It's not even about that really Okay, the abstraction of the integers really exists in the World of Forms, they're all having a great time there without us *So what* Why is talking about "2+2=4" *relevant*
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @UnknownEnby and
IDK, it was fun at the very least. Exchanged some solid barbs. Got plenty of good burns from you lot. Got a little frustrated by the volume of interlocutors at first but now I'm starting to like you people somewhat
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Gent_Sausage @arthur_affect and
Also World of Forms is best world. I wish I could visit some time
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.