Alt. Profile @Th4tGuyII

  • 0 Posts
  • 52 Comments
Joined 19 days ago
cake
Cake day: June 11th, 2024

help-circle



  • 20 episodes in a single day is a slog, even for a show you like.

    Unless you’re watching a dub, you can’t just listen, you have to be watching the whole time otherwise you miss the sub and have to go back - so you have to be giving your full concentration.

    Personally I find it quite hard to my full concentration for more than a couple of hours - nevermind the 7 hours it would take to pull this off.


  • Again, if you started writing 0.999… on a piece of paper, it would never suddenly become 1, it would always be 0.999… - you know that to be true without even trying it.

    The difference is virtually nonexistent, and that is what makes them mathematically equal, but there is a difference, otherwise there wouldn’t be an infinitely long string of 9s between the two.


  • Any real world implementation of maths (such as the length of an object) would definitely be constricted to real world parameters, and the lowest length you can go to is the Planck length.

    But that point wasn’t just to talk about a plank of wood, it was to show how little difference the infinite 9s in 0.999… make.


  • It is mathematically equal to one, but it isn’t physically one. If you wrote out 0.999… out to infinity, it’d never just suddenly round up to 1.

    But the point I was trying to make is that I agree with the interpretation of the meme in that the above distinction literally doesn’t matter - you could use either in a calculation and the answer wouldn’t (or at least shouldn’t) change.

    That’s pretty much the point I was trying to make in proving how little the difference makes in reality - that the universe wouldn’t let you explore the infinity between the two, so at some point you would have to round to 1m, or go to a number 1x planck length below 1m.


  • 0.999… / 3 = 0.333… 1 / 3 = 0.333… Ergo 1 = 0.999…

    (Or see algebraic proof by @Valthorn@feddit.nu)

    If the difference between two numbers is so infinitesimally small they are in essence mathematically equal, then I see no reason to not address then as such.

    If you tried to make a plank of wood 0.999…m long (and had the tools to do so), you’d soon find out the universe won’t let you arbitrarily go on to infinity. You’d find that when you got to the planck length, you’d have to either round up the previous digit, resolving to 1, or stop at the last 9.








  • Exactly!

    Applicants are expected to dedicated hours of their time to writing their application and performing background research - both of which are becoming increasingly more tedious over time - so the least a company could bloody do is show some basic respect by paying an actual human being to come interview you!



  • The TL;DR for the article is that the headline isn’t exactly true. At this moment in time their PPU can potentially double a CPU’s performance - the 100x claim comes with the caveat of “further software optimisation”.


    Tbh, I’m sceptical of the caveat. It feels like me telling someone I can only draw a stickman right now, but I could paint the Mona Lisa with some training.

    Of course that could happen, but it’s not very likely to - so I’ll believe it when I see it.

    Having said that they’re not wrong about CPU bottlenecks and the slowed rate of CPU performance improvements - so a doubling of performance would be huge in this current market.