Explaining the concept of imprecise measurements to explain 2+2 potentially equalling 5 took me about 30 seconds. I thought it was pretty simple.
-
-
Replying to @JackJackington @BacktoschoolD and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likes -
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
you would think someone who knows binary numbers would understand 2+2 can be anything depending on hte base you are working..
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @renmiri1 @JackJackington and
Yeah it's 10 in base 3 and 4 in literally every number system in which there can be a 2 in the first place. But the value underlying the system in which it's framed is still the same.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Gent_Sausage @JackJackington and
/sigh "in the system it is framed" is the key piece you are missing... Values don't mean anything without context. And we haven't even gotten to quantum mechanics...
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @renmiri1 @JackJackington and
A thing whose properties are such that its state is in constant flux is also not actually altered by the momentary observation of a particular state at a particular time. It is not forced to assume a state by the observer. That's the state it was in at the moment of observation
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
That's not actually how the spooky stuff in quantum mechanics works, like the whole reason it's spooky is that it's not just some banal observation about not being able to clearly see certain things because they're too small
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @Gent_Sausage and
The double slit experiment is so disturbing to people because it demonstrates that observation *does* seem to fundamentally change what is being observed
7 replies 1 retweet 26 likes -
- Show replies
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.