Lvxferre [he/him]

The catarrhine who invented a perpetual motion machine, by dreaming at night and devouring its own dreams through the day.

  • 4 Posts
  • 1.79K Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: January 12th, 2024

help-circle
  • 22 yards in a chain

    What. I had to websearch this because it sounds too silly, but apparently it’s true.

    But, really, even if it used saner numbers (like 12:3:24:8:3), it still feels nothing like a “metric dozenal” would look like. It’s missing the two things the metric system did right:

    1. All prefixes are unit-agnostic, like they were numbers. For example you can plop “kilo” = 10³ on weight (kilogram), length (kilometre), volume (kilolitre), energy, (kilojoule), etc.
    2. All prefixes must be an integer power of the base. For example you could make a 10⁸ prefix, even if there’s none, and it would be OK; but you can’t make, say, a 10^(2.447) = 300 one.

  • Metric “dozenalisation” would be perfectly viable, and metric-dozenal units would still look nothing like USA units.

    I’ll use length for the example. All of them in base 10, just for clarity. (Also the name of the units would be different, but I’m not changing them for this example.)

    • metric-decimal: 10⁻³ km = 10⁻² hm = 10⁻¹ dam = 10⁰m = 10¹dm = 10²cm = 10³mm
    • metric-dozenal: 12⁻³ km = 12⁻²hm = 12⁻¹ dam = 12⁰m = 12¹dm = 12²cm = 12³mm
    • USA units: 1/1760mi = 1yd = 3ft = 3*12 in = 3*12*6 P = 3*12*6*12 p

    Are you noticing what the USA units do? They don’t stick to a base.


  • Lvxferre [he/him]@mander.xyztoScience Memes@mander.xyzConverting numbers is easy
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    People are focusing on the Excel part, I’ll focus on the maths.

    I wish our societies picked base-12 instead of base-10. Divisions in base-12 give you repeating digits less often, and being able to split exactly by 3, 6, 9 and 12₁₀=10₁₂ is far more useful than doing it for 5 and 10₁₀=A₁₂.

    Plus 4chan would stop arguing if 0.999… = 1. It would argue instead if 0.BBB… = 1.





  • I don’t blame the orcas - have you seen a human? Those things are, like, 1/3 of the size of an orca; they’re clearly malnourished, some good ol’ seal meat will fix’em up real good!

    Serious now. I think it’s interesting how they’re interacting cooperatively, with an animal of a different species. And it isn’t like either side domesticated the other (unlike, say, humans vs. dogs and cats); they don’t even live in the same environments, at most you have some humans doing short trips into the sea and that’s it.

    “What I think in a sense is more impressive is that humans basically give no credit to any other creature for having a mind,” Safina said. Yet many other creatures, including orcas, understand implicitly that humans have minds. “So they understand us, and give us more credit there, they seem to comprehend the world better than we do, in our self-imposed estrangement.”

    I feel like this is a step beyond theory of mind already.











  • When something similar happened in the UK, it was pretty much exclusively smaller/niche forums, run by volunteers and donations, that went offline.

    [Warning, IANAL] I am really not sure if the experience is transposable for two reasons:

    1. UK follows Saxon tribal law, while Brazil follows Roman civil law. I am not sure but I believe the former requires both sides to dig up precedents, and that puts a heavier burden on the smaller side of a legal litigation. While in the later, if you show “ackshyually in that older case the defendant was deemed guilty”, all the judge will say is “so? What is written is what matters; if the defendant violated the law or not.”.
    2. The Americas in general are notorious for sloppy law enforcement. Specially Brazil. Doubly so when both parties are random nobodies.

    So there’s still a huge room for smaller forums to survive, or even thrive. It all depends on how the STF enforces it. For example it might take into account that a team of volunteers has less liability because their ability to remove random junk from the internet is lower than some megacorpo from the middle of nowhere.

    Additionally, it might be possible the legislative screeches at the judiciary, and releases some additional law that does practically the same as that article 19, except it doesn’t leave room for the judiciary to claim it’s unconstitutional. Because, like, as I said the judiciary is a bit too powerful, but the other powers still can fight back, specially the legislative.


  • For context:

    There’s an older law called Marco Civil da Internet (roughly “internet civil framework”), from 2014. The Article 19 of that law boils down to “if a third party posts content that violates the law in an internet service, the service provider isn’t legally responsible, unless there’s a specific judicial order telling it to remove it.”

    So. The new law gets rid of that article, claiming it’s unconstitutional. In effect, this means service providers (mostly social media) need to proactively remove illegal content, even without judicial order.

    I kind of like the direction this is going, but it raises three concerns:

    1. False positives becoming more common.
    2. The burden will be considerably bigger for smaller platforms than bigger ones.
    3. It gives the STF yet another tool for vendetta. The judiciary is already a bit too strong in comparison with the other two powers, and this decision only feeds the beast further.

    On a lighter side, regardless of #2, I predict a lower impact in the Fediverse than in centralised social media.