Fathoming airport wifi port tribbles
-
```
echo '30 / 2.5'|bc;
echo '12 * 2.5'|bc;IIRC the correct conversion factor has more digits tho. can't remember what they are and can't be arsed to look it up.</blockquote> `units` to the rescue! @My shell said:<blockquote><tt>$ units Currency exchange rates from 2013-07-11 2562 units, 85 prefixes, 66 nonlinear units</tt> <tt>You have: 1 inch You want: cm * 2.54 / 0.39370079</tt></blockquote> Seems you were @OffByOne digit ;) <small>EDIT: Work around Dicsource formatting bug
-
aah. so my answers were off ~4%.
got it. i've seen worse margins of error.
-
You have fun with your winning, Charlie Sheen.
You seem particularly clueless for the guy with the wooden spoon<yeah, don't deny that's what it looks like>.
-
You seem particularly clueless for the guy with the wooden spoon.
Having a lot to say is not the same as being knowledgeable.
-
Having a lot to say is not the same as being knowledgeable.
Clueless about winning on TDWTF.
-
-
My point still stands.
I don't disagree with it in general, just that it wasn't applicable to my harangue of @FrostCat.
-
I don't disagree with it in general, just that it wasn't applicable to my harangue of @FrostCat.
Well, he was arguing your point, so I thought it was. But my TFS upgrade just finished, so I CBA to argue my point anymore right now.
-
WTF? Discourse won't quote your quote of @accalia, at all. Grumble... Let's see if can force it in manually:
@OffByOne said:@accalia said:
echo '12 * 2.5'|bc;
IIRC the correct conversion factor has more digits tho.
You have: 1 inch You want: cm * 2.54 / 0.39370079
This is one I have memorized, because I use it pretty often. Unlike most conversions, it is exact.I had another argument with a college Chemistry instructor over an exam question on this. I treated this as an exact conversion, but he said I my answer should have had only 3 significant digits. I showed him a Physics textbook that said the conversion was exact, but the textbook was dated before the meter was redefined in terms of the speed of light, and "it might not still be true of the new definition of the meter." (Never mind that the new meter was defined to be equal to the old meter as precisely as it could be measured.) I had to go to three different libraries before I found a booklet published by the (then) NBS, dated after the redefinition, that stated that the legal definition of a yard is exactly 0.9144 meters; divide that by 36 (yards to inches, exact conversion factor not disputed), and you get exactly .0254 m, or 2.54 cm. Unlike my FORTRAN instructor, he did give me the point on the test ; he also offered me a job as a student worker in the Chem lab.
-
You have always been a pendant, haven't you?
-
Pretty much, yeah.
-
-
Yes master Accalia Fairyfox, I shall appear as summoned.
-
You have always been a pendant, haven't you?
@HardwareGeek is not making assumptions, but researching indisputable facts to support his claims. I'd say that makes him a great conversation partner, but since there are no badges for that, let's go for pendant
This is one I have memorized, because I use it pretty often. Unlike most conversions, it is exact.
I also have it memorized, but didn't know it was exact. Thanks for pointing that out!
Other conversion factors I know/use:
- 1 mile is 1.6km (1.5 if low accuracy is good enough)
- 1 yard is 90cm (1m if low accuracy is good enough)
- 1 foot is 30cm (30.5cm if higher accuracy is desired)
- x°F is (x-32)×5/9°C (x/2 if low accuracy is good enough, especially for larger x)
For the rest I use
units
on my computers or Units on my phone.
-
@accalia want!
@sockbot, go get that for me!
GIS pendant. In the results Google gave me, at least, it's a few screenfulls down. Whether the site with the image has them for sale, I didn't check; I just wanted the image for this post.
-
@HardwareGeek is not making assumptions, but researching indisputable facts to support his claims. I'd say that makes him a
FTFMgreat conversation partnerPITA for lazy teachers.
-
@OffByOne said:
@HardwareGeek is not making assumptions, but researching indisputable facts to support his claims. I'd say that makes him a
great conversation partnerPITA for lazy teachers.
FTFMYou say that like it's XOR?
-
No, it's not necessarily XOR, but I'm not at all sure I am really a great conversation partner. I have a bit of a tendency to turn conversations into lectures.
-
No, it's not necessarily XOR, but I'm not at all sure I am really a great conversation partner. I have a bit of a tendency to turn conversations into lectures.
Eeexcellent! *evil finger piramid thing*
You might be a great conversation partner for a select group of people though. Not everybody likes to learn.
I've seen @accalia squeeing a few times when knowledge is dumped on her. I myself keep on coming here not just because of the adorable personalities and welcoming atmosphere, but also for the (sometimes) in-depth explanations on subjects I know little about.You are one of those people here when if you explain something ("turn the conversation into a lecture", as you call it), I always have the strong impression you know what you are talking about or at least did enough research to confirm that what you say is true.
There are plenty of people that take the first buttumption that pops up in their mind, promote it to undeniable fact in their heads and deny any real fact that proves them wrong. That's why JDGI is a thing.
Those are the people that when they explain something, I always feel the need to fact-check and verify what they say before accepting it.It's refreshing to have a conversation with someone who at least can tell why they believe something, who uses falsifiable facts to support their claims.
-
I always have the strong impression you know what you are talking about or at least did enough research to confirm that what you say is true.
Usually, although I have failed spectacularly (at least they seemed that way to me) a couple of times.
-
-
@OffByOne said:
I always have the strong impression you know what you are talking about or at least did enough research to confirm that what you say is true.
Usually, although I have failed spectacularly (at least they seemed that way to me) a couple of times.At least you make a genuine effort.
If on top of that, you can admit that you based your explanation on a wrong assumption or that there are weak spots in your logic (which I guess you can, although I CBA to Discosearch for evidence), then civilised discourse follows automatically.
-
-
you can admit that you based your explanation on a wrong assumption or that there are weak spots in your logic (which I guess you can, although I CBA to Discosearch for evidence)
TBH, I usually just shut up and hope nobody noticed.Yes, you are absolutely correct, of course.
-
a fennec fox being fed a green bean.
they are adorable, they are foxes, they are rediculously expressive. so i use then amd GIS as big emotes.
-
x/2 if low accuracy is good enough, especially for larger x
Tell me how that approximation works out for you where x = -40°F*. Actually, I'd call that approximation absolutely wrong from 32°F to -40°F. I'd expand that range out, but CBA to determine the actual limits where I would not accept such a margin of error.
* [spoiler]Actual conversion gives you -40C. I'd say that the "approximation" of -20C is not really "low accuracy".[/spoiler]
-
You don't win on TDWTF, you just grow a bit more pedantic each day.
-
@Me said:
x/2 if low accuracy is good enough, especially for larger x
Tell me how that approximation works out for you where x = -40°F*. Actually, I'd call that approximation absolutely wrong from 32°F to -40°F.
It doesn't work out at all, but I wouldn't say -40 qualifies as "larger x". Nothing in the range you mentioned does, for that matter.
If you get up to temperatures >100°F, the approximation starts being accurate enough for a quick estimate.
For those values, the +32 constant term can be neglected and 5/9 approximates ½ well enough.* Actual conversion gives you 40C. I'd say that the "approximation" of 20C is not really "low accuracy".
I think I'm misunderstanding what you are saying. Do you mean -40°F == 40°C? -40°F == -22,222...°C.
My x/2 approximation converts -20°F to -20°C, which is suprisingly accurate (I wouldn't have expected that).
-
Do you mean -40°F == 40°C? -40°F == -22,222...°C.My x/2 approximation converts -20°F to -20°C, which is suprisingly accurate (I wouldn't have expected that).
-40°F==-40°C. It is the point where the addition in the conversion formula washes out the multiple.
-
-40°F==-40°C. It is the point where the addition in the conversion formula washes out the multiple.
Yes, but does -40°F===-40°C?
-
-40°F==-40°C. It is the point where the addition in the conversion formula washes out the multiple.
Ok, so the minuses got eaten in @abarker's post.
I didn't know about that particular point. Cool!
-
For those values, the
+32-32 constant term can be neglected and 5/9 approximates ½ well enough.
FTFPIf you get up to temperatures >100°F, the approximation starts being accurate enough for a quick estimate.For those values, the +32 constant term can be neglected and 5/9 approximates ½ well enough.
So you'd say 50C is a good approximation of 37.7C?
I think I'm misunderstanding what you are saying. Do you mean -40°F == 40°C?
Oops, missed a negative. I'll fix that. As for your -22, that's not right.
-
-40°F==-40°C. It is the point where the
additionsubtraction in the conversion formula washes out the multiple.FTFP
-
-
-
-
-
you can add a negative number.
True, but since the conversation had been talking about +32, I felt that something needed to be said.
-
Whoosh
I said ===, not ==
-
Ah, missed the extra =. All those horizontal lines kinda blurred together.
-
You lucky people and your 87 octane.
So you probably don't want to hear that station was down to $2.54 this morning. If it helps, the 91 or whatever is only 30 cents more.
-
You seem particularly clueless for the guy with the wooden spoon.
You can win this one if it means that much to you. I'm not going to waste any more time arguing with yet another metric bigot.
-
@OffByOne said:
If you get up to temperatures >100°F, the approximation starts being accurate enough for a quick estimate.For those values, the +32 constant term can be neglected and 5/9 approximates ½ well enough.
So you'd say 50C is a good approximation of 37.7C?
For an approximation of "about halfway between where water turns to ice and where water turns to steam", yes.For any calculations that require more accuracy than that, no.
@OffByOne said:
I think I'm misunderstanding what you are saying. Do you mean -40°F == 40°C?
Oops, missed a negative. I'll fix that. As for your -22, that's not right.
Indeed, I don't know where that -22 came from. Can I say I made a Discalculation? ;)
-
Can I say I made a Discalculation?
Certainly.
Indeed, I don't know where that -22 came from
I think I do. You entered it in a calculator without taking into account order of operations, and you reversed the sign on the 32, so your calculation was:
-40 + (32 * 5 / 9) = -22,222222222
-
You entered it in a calculator without taking into account order of operations, and you reversed the sign on the 32, so your calculation was:
-40 + (32 * 5 / 9) = -22,222222222
Heh, look at that :) Seems we both missed a minus somewhere
-
-
Actual conversion gives you -40C. I'd say that the "approximation" of -20C is not really "low accuracy".
"Fucking cold" versus "really fucking cold". Seems decent enough.
-
-
- Legally, perhaps, but effectively a bit longer:
In 1930 the British Standards Institution adopted an inch of exactly 25.4 mm. The **American Standards Association** followed suit in **1933**. By 1935 industry in 16 countries had adopted the "industrial inch" as it came to be known.[25][26]
2. The exact conversion factor is the only one I have ever had to use in my lifetime. (Numbered lists and block quotes do not play nicely together. @discoursebot!) 3. Even before 1959, 2.54 was accurate to 5 (almost 6) significant figures, plenty for almost any reasonable purposes — 2.54000508008086002032004064008 4. \*Sigh\* This being the US, we have *two* definitions of an inch: >However, the United States retains the 1/39.37-metre definition for survey purposes creating a slight difference between the international and US survey inches; the difference is exactly 2 parts in a million, so 1,000,000 international inches is equal to 999,998 US survey inches. This is approximately 1/8-inch in a mile.
-
@HardwareGeek - Days Since Last Discourse Bug: 0