Things that remind you of WDTWTF members
-
@TimeBandit the first victim would need to be the so...
-
@topspin said in Things that remind you of WDTWTF members:
Just wait until mating season and with a little magic maybe the attitude will change...
-
-
I could totally hit that drive. Have hit that drive.
-
@boomzilla said in Things that remind you of WDTWTF members:
terrible drives
The driving anti-patterns thread is .
-
@HardwareGeek said in Things that remind you of WDTWTF members:
@boomzilla said in Things that remind you of WDTWTF members:
terrible drives
The driving anti-patterns thread is .
As is the NSFW thread, just for other types of drives.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzK11DrRdks
Including the obligatory "This is legit, trust me bro."
-
@cvi said in Things that remind you of WDTWTF members:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzK11DrRdks
Including the obligatory "This is legit, trust me bro."
All checks out here, speaking as someone with a physics PhD. And that's a relatively minor example of how we mathematicians.
-
@cvi said in Things that remind you of WDTWTF members:
“Let’s say I forgot the Taylor expansion of ex.”
Who’s that supposed to remind me of? The only people who can’t remember that wouldn’t be cultured enough to have known it in the first place
-
@kazitor said in Things that remind you of WDTWTF members:
The only people who can’t remember that wouldn’t be cultured enough to have known it in the first place
I'm sure I knew it once upon a time, but I haven't used most of the math I learned in decades, and that's something that fades quickly if not used. I still remember algebra, geometry, trig, the fundamental principles (but not most of the implementation of the principles) of calculus, and of course boolean algebra — I use that all day, every day — but not much else. I remember bits and pieces of other things, and the existence of some more advanced techniques, like Laplace transforms, but not enough to use them if my life depended on it. Taylor and other series expansions faded into the mists of time long ago.
-
-
@HardwareGeek Taylor series are far simpler than Laplace transforms. For e^x, you just need to remember the defining characteristic of d/dx e^x = e^x. The series coefficients follow directly from that.
-
-
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in Things that remind you of WDTWTF members:
@cvi said in Things that remind you of WDTWTF members:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzK11DrRdks
Including the obligatory "This is legit, trust me bro."
All checks out here, speaking as someone with a physics PhD. And that's a relatively minor example of how we mathematicians.
Where we're quite happy to use Dy(x) to represent y'(x) and write (D2+5D+3) to represent an operator that turns y(x) into (D2+5D+3)y(x) = D2y(x)+5Dy(x)+3y(x) = y''(x)+5y'(x)+3y(x). 1/D is then of course just ∫.
-
@topspin said in Things that remind you of WDTWTF members:
@HardwareGeek Taylor series are far simpler than Laplace transforms. For e^x, you just need to remember the defining characteristic of d/dx e^x = e^x. The series coefficients follow directly from that.
You also need the initial condition e⁰=1
And a thing or three about differentiation, of course.
-
@cvi said in Things that remind you of WDTWTF members:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzK11DrRdks
Including the obligatory "This is legit, trust me bro."
I think they meant ∫-Tier Acrobatics.
-
@Watson said in Things that remind you of WDTWTF members:
@Benjamin-Hall said in Things that remind you of WDTWTF members:
@cvi said in Things that remind you of WDTWTF members:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzK11DrRdks
Including the obligatory "This is legit, trust me bro."
All checks out here, speaking as someone with a physics PhD. And that's a relatively minor example of how we mathematicians.
Where we're quite happy to use Dy(x) to represent y'(x) and write (D2+5D+3) to represent an operator that turns y(x) into (D2+5D+3)y(x) = D2y(x)+5Dy(x)+3y(x) = y''(x)+5y'(x)+3y(x). 1/D is then of course just ∫.
I've seen mathematicians do it as well, with d/dx notation. Just remember it doesn't commute with things which depend on x, and there's some conditions to check (or ignore) when commuting d/dx with d/dy.
-
@Watson said in Things that remind you of WDTWTF members:
Where we're quite happy to use Dy(x) to represent y'(x)
Not to mention my favorite piece of "notational abuse" (as my university teacher liked to call it), the Del operator.
-
@PleegWat said in Things that remind you of WDTWTF members:
@Watson said in Things that remind you of WDTWTF members:
@Benjamin-Hall said in Things that remind you of WDTWTF members:
@cvi said in Things that remind you of WDTWTF members:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzK11DrRdks
Including the obligatory "This is legit, trust me bro."
All checks out here, speaking as someone with a physics PhD. And that's a relatively minor example of how we mathematicians.
Where we're quite happy to use Dy(x) to represent y'(x) and write (D2+5D+3) to represent an operator that turns y(x) into (D2+5D+3)y(x) = D2y(x)+5Dy(x)+3y(x) = y''(x)+5y'(x)+3y(x). 1/D is then of course just ∫.
I've seen mathematicians do it as well, with d/dx notation. Just remember it doesn't commute with things which depend on x, and there's some conditions to check (or ignore) when commuting d/dx with d/dy.
...And then you can use Taylor expansions to give you definitions for operators like sin(D) or sin(∫), the same way you can (with the same caution about what commutes) with matrices.
-
@Watson And then there's seperable differential equations.
yy'=x³
y dy/dx = x³
y dy = x³ dx
∫y dy = ∫x³ dx
½y²=¼x⁴ + C
y=±√(½x⁴+C)
-
-
INB4 rookie numbers
-
-
@boomzilla 27? Is that supposed to a lot?
-
@cvi said in Things that remind you of WDTWTF members:
@boomzilla 27? Is that supposed to a lot?
Since Google steadfastly refuse to support vertical tabs: yes.
-
@LaoC said in Things that remind you of WDTWTF members:
Since Google steadfastly refuse to support vertical tabs: yes.
But they support multiple windows
-
@TimeBandit said in Things that remind you of WDTWTF members:
@LaoC said in Things that remind you of WDTWTF members:
Since Google steadfastly refuse to support vertical tabs: yes.
But they support multiple windows
So... that's 27 per window, right? Sounds nice.
-
@dkf said in Things that remind you of WDTWTF members:
@TimeBandit said in Things that remind you of WDTWTF members:
@LaoC said in Things that remind you of WDTWTF members:
Since Google steadfastly refuse to support vertical tabs: yes.
But they support multiple windows
So... that's 27 per window, right? Sounds nice.
You need another 42.0 per window to achieve a nice number of tabs.
-
@izzion said in Things that remind you of WDTWTF members:
@dkf said in Things that remind you of WDTWTF members:
@TimeBandit said in Things that remind you of WDTWTF members:
@LaoC said in Things that remind you of WDTWTF members:
Since Google steadfastly refuse to support vertical tabs: yes.
But they support multiple windows
So... that's 27 per window, right? Sounds nice.
You need another 42.0 per window to achieve a nice number of tabs.
33 is still a good number...
-
@dkf said in Things that remind you of WDTWTF members:
@izzion said in Things that remind you of WDTWTF members:
@dkf said in Things that remind you of WDTWTF members:
@TimeBandit said in Things that remind you of WDTWTF members:
@LaoC said in Things that remind you of WDTWTF members:
Since Google steadfastly refuse to support vertical tabs: yes.
But they support multiple windows
So... that's 27 per window, right? Sounds nice.
You need another 42.0 per window to achieve a nice number of tabs.
33 is still a good number...
But it’s not nice
-
@dkf said in Things that remind you of WDTWTF members:
@izzion said in Things that remind you of WDTWTF members:
@dkf said in Things that remind you of WDTWTF members:
@TimeBandit said in Things that remind you of WDTWTF members:
@LaoC said in Things that remind you of WDTWTF members:
Since Google steadfastly refuse to support vertical tabs: yes.
But they support multiple windows
So... that's 27 per window, right? Sounds nice.
You need another 42.0 per window to achieve a nice number of tabs.
33 is still a good number...
It's not 3↑↑↑3 though.
-
@izzion said in Things that remind you of WDTWTF members:
@dkf said in Things that remind you of WDTWTF members:
@TimeBandit said in Things that remind you of WDTWTF members:
@LaoC said in Things that remind you of WDTWTF members:
Since Google steadfastly refuse to support vertical tabs: yes.
But they support multiple windows
So... that's 27 per window, right? Sounds nice.
You need another 42.0 per window to achieve a nice number of tabs.
-
-
@DogsB said in Things that remind you of WDTWTF members:
I would like to sleep in goo. So long as it's sufficiently temperate and I can aspirate....
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Things that remind you of WDTWTF members:
I would like to sleep in goo.
The "Things we don't want to know about @Tsaukpaetra" thread is .
-
@HardwareGeek said in Things that remind you of WDTWTF members:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Things that remind you of WDTWTF members:
I would like to sleep in goo.
The "Things we don't want to know about @Tsaukpaetra" but secretly suspected all along thread is .
🔧
-
-
-
@Atazhaia said in Things that remind you of WDTWTF members:
@DogsB said in Things that remind you of WDTWTF members:
We've probably actually milked cows.
Can confirm. I have milked a cow by hand.
So have I. What does being Swedish or Irish have to do with anything?
-
-
@Mason_Wheeler yeah, it's obviously an even number.
-
@Mason_Wheeler The byte bit him.
-
So, if there is only person in the chat, they are person # 0 ?
-
@Gern_Blaanston said in Things that remind you of WDTWTF members:
So, if there is only person in the chat, they are person # 0 ?
Just the creator,
-
Things that don't remind you of WTDWTF members:
-
Question of the day
Where would you like to be most of all right now … if you could wish?On the attic, where I wouldn’t really be doing anything.
-
https://youtu.be/ssob-7sGVWs?t=2156
(I definitely recommend watching this segment and the following one. Analysis of a feature that's next-level , followed by an amazing rant about the IT industry that would 100% belong here.)
-
@Zerosquare Fuckin' A!
-
@Applied-Mediocrity Thin clients with smart card + PIN authentication?