|
Red Metal posted:The scale is logarithmic, so a -2 is about 2.5 times brighter than a -1, and 6.26 times brighter than a 0 I grew up as a space nerd so I ran across this concept long before the more usual definition of an "order of magnitude". In sixth grade or so, when the math teacher tried to tell us that an order of magnitude was a factor of ten, I straight-up argued with him that no, that's wrong, it's a factor of 2.5. He'd never heard of astronomical magnitudes and had no idea what I was talking about, so we left class that day with each of us thinking the other was crazy. 
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2018 18:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 03:40 |
|
|
This is an awful graph. If you already know the subject matter, you can see that it’s not wrong. If you don’t, the graph doesn’t teach you anything. Talkie Toaster posted:That’s a not an awful chart, it’s just a chart that chart that accurately conveys how awful astronomy is. Magnitude is an attempt to extend a bizarre ancient category system only intended to go from 1-6 by retrofitting a (non-base-10) log scale to it. It makes even Crabs look like a good measurement (unit equal to the brightness of the Crab nebula). “Pogson’s ratio” has a good ring to it, but it’s close enough to Euler’s number that he arguably should have just used that. Andrast posted:How did that even come into existence? A star blew up 6500 light‐years from Earth. In 1054 CE, light from that explosion reached the Earth and appeared as an extremely bright star, brighter than every other star in the night sky put together. Debris from that explosion has been spreading out at a significant fraction of the speed of light ever since. Today, almost a thousand years later, it’s the brightest consistent x‐ray source in the sky. It can be outshone by several temporary phenomena, but those make poor benchmarks for obvious reasons.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2018 21:25
|
|
|
The worst are particle physicists who measure collisions in inverse femtobarns.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2018 21:29
|
|
|
i thought this was a poll result and was waiting for the odd one out like "my hand" or something
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2018 21:44
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:How are all these people “lol so random”ly stumbling across Jordan Peterson? You have to bear in mind that they aren't looking at the same content you are. The people that "randomly" stumble across him are probably already into fairly right-wing circles, but still in the mainstream (they probably comment a lot on facebook and WSJ articles). Peterson is popular there because he's basically "entry-level fascism". The harder alt-right people introduce him into moderate circles because he's not explicitly fascist himself, so he's still palatable to center-right people, but his ideas just happen to line up a lot with more overt fascists, so once people get really into him the same people that introduced Peterson come along and say "hey if you like him, why not check out (much more explicit Nazi shill X)?" The Cheshire Cat has a new favorite as of 23:03 on Sep 29, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2018 22:25
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:“Pogson’s ratio” has a good ring to it, but it’s close enough to Euler’s number that he arguably should have just used that.  Until this conversation, I always figured astronomical magnitude used log-10. When people started saying 2.5, I thought it was meant as a rough approximation of e. The fifth root of one hundred?!
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2018 22:57
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:You have to bear in mind that they aren't looking at the same content you are. The people that "randomly" stumble across him are probably already into fairly right-wing circles, but still in the mainstream (they probably comment a lot on facebook and WSJ articles). Peterson is popular there because he's basically "entry-level fascism". The harder alt-right people introduce him into moderate circles because he's not explicitly fascist himself, so he's still palatable to center-right people, but his ideas just happen to line up a lot with more overt fascists, so once people get really into him the same people that introduced Peterson come along and say "hey if you like him, why not check out (much more explicit Nazi shill X)?" I think that's overdoing it. His book, 12 Rules or something similar was very popular. It was displayed front and center at airports in South Africa when I was there. He's been on Rogan's podcast, and probably lots of other places as well. He was mentioned on a channel of jiu-jitsu instruction videos for some reason, I guess he has a philosophy on sport. Anyway, not defending the guy, but basically anyone could come across him by mistake at this point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2018 23:13
|
|
|
Krankenstyle posted:i thought this was a poll result and was waiting for the odd one out like "my hand" or something 
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2018 23:15
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:I think that's overdoing it. His book, 12 Rules or something similar was very popular. It was displayed front and center at airports in South Africa when I was there. He's been on Rogan's podcast, and probably lots of other places as well. He was mentioned on a channel of jiu-jitsu instruction videos for some reason, I guess he has a philosophy on sport. im permabanned poster pronounstomper58. i first started reading the idw when i was about 12. by 14 i got really obsessed with the concept of "owning the libs" and tried to channel it constantly, until my thought process got really bizarre and i would repeat things like "murderous equity doctrine” and "cultural marxism" in my head for hours, and i would get really paranoid, start seeing things in the corners of my eyes etc, basically prodromal schizophrenia. im now on antipsychotics. i always wondered what the kind of "fascist" style of the idw was all about; i think it's the unconscious leaking in to the conscious, what jungian theory considered to be the cause of schizophrenic and schizotypal syptoms. i would advise all people who "get" jordy pete to be careful because that likely means you have a predisposition to a mental illness. peace.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2018 23:19
|
|
|
Has there been any research on how logarithmic scales influence the perception of the average person, and on how they respond to normal vs logarithmic graphs?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2018 23:23
|
|
|
Vavrek posted:
Welcome to my life. Astronomers throughout ages were really fond of random rear end garbage units they case up on the spot. For example, siriometre. cinci zoo sniper has a new favorite as of 13:07 on Sep 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2018 23:26
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Has there been any research on how logarithmic scales influence the perception of the average person, and on how they respond to normal vs logarithmic graphs? a little bit and the answer is mostly “people don’t interpret log scales correctly” especially in things like bar charts where people are comparing the heights directly rather than reading off the legend
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2018 23:29
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:Welcome to my life. Astronomers throughout ages were really fond of random rear end garbage units the cane up on the spot. For example, siriometre.  "Well that's not good."  Why?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2018 23:32
|
|
|
Tree Goat posted:a little bit and the answer is mostly “people don’t interpret log scales correctly” especially in things like bar charts where people are comparing the heights directly rather than reading off the legend 
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 00:45
|
|
|
Vavrek posted:
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 00:50
|
|
|
Talkie Toaster posted:That’s a not an awful chart, it’s just a chart that chart that accurately conveys how awful astronomy is. Magnitude is an attempt to extend a bizarre ancient category system only intended to go from 1-6 by retrofitting a (non-base-10) log scale to it. It makes even Crabs look like a good measurement (unit equal to the brightness of the Crab nebula). It is an awful chart because it's labeled "Brightest Objects in the Sky" and not "Apparent Magnitude of Some Things." A chart of the brightest objects in the sky would be interesting. Well, once you're done with the planets.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 01:52
|
|
|
kazil posted:It is an awful chart because it's labeled "Brightest Objects in the Sky" and not "Apparent Magnitude of Some Things." Why? It’s mostly just a whole bunch of stars, unless you go Munroe and start counting birds:  1. Sun 2. Moon 2–6. Planets 7–20. Stars 21.  Large Magellanic Cloud, the first object that’s not a moon, star, or planet. It’s a satellite galaxy of the Milky Way. From near the Equator or anywhere in the Southern Hemisphere, it looks like, well, a cloud in the night sky. It’s bright because it’s made of stars.  22–123. More stars 124. Small Magellanic Cloud. It’s like the Large Magellanic Cloud but smaller. 125–378. Yet more stars. 379. Andromeda Galaxy. With the unaided eye, it’s an a small, faint smudge. After this is just several thousand stars and a small handful of globular clusters (those sound more exciting than they are).
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 08:07
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Has there been any research on how logarithmic scales influence the perception of the average person, and on how they respond to normal vs logarithmic graphs? Most human perception actually works on a log scale - that's why sound is measured in decibels, for instance.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 09:22
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:Most human perception actually works on a log scale - that's why sound is measured in decibels, for instance. It's also why things like volume controls are such a nightmare on a computer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 11:57
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:Most human perception actually works on a log scale - that's why sound is measured in decibels, for instance. Decibels. Deci...bels. Deci Bells? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 12:04
|
|
|
Yeah, as in Alexander Graham Bell. It wasn't made by him, just named in honor him by ... Bell Labs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 12:10
|
|
|
lmao thanks
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 13:24
|
|
|
Vavrek posted:Yeah, as in Alexander Graham Bell. It wasn't made by him, just named in honor him by ... Bell Labs. There was a Geico cinema advert I saw recently (a "please silence your phone" one) with Bell picking up a phone and saying "ahoy-hoy", an attention to detail which I very much appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 17:11
|
|
|
Is that why Mr. Burns says it? Holy poo poo I never realized until now
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 22:38
|
|
|
Mister Burns is old. That’s the joke.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 23:03
|
|
|
How Munroe got away with not including "Bats (Not Bugs)", I will never know.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 23:10
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 23:20
|
|
|
By the completely uninteresting and unhelpful numbers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 23:24
|
|
|
I work as an auto estimator for a major insurer and I can ensure you every camry dent is well-documented in the group chat because there are no lies on that chart
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 23:25
|
|
|
The last chart, but for the new Tesla: 
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 23:36
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Mister Burns is old. That’s the joke. that sort of attention to detail is what sets golden age simpsons apart from....the last two decades 
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2018 23:44
|
|
|
Spoeank posted:I work as an auto estimator for a major insurer and I can ensure you every camry dent is well-documented in the group chat because there are no lies on that chart Things that might be interesting about the Camry dents: how they compared to other common models, structural reasons why it might be happening, how it changes over time, how the manufacturer mitigated it in later models, how the size of the dents correlates to the speed of a collision, a projection of the amount of time it will take before every surviving Camry is dented, what to do if your Camry gets dented. Uninteresting things: the color and generation of the cars in your sample.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 00:13
|
|
|
walrusman posted:
More data = better. Always. Even if it's pointless data.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 00:28
|
|
|
 This loving joke is over-said. It's been fourteen years, the meme is dead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 00:32
|
|
|
TinTower posted:
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 08:46
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:I don't get it. wake me up, when September ends
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 09:01
|
|
|
Hurt Whitey Maybe posted:wake me up, when September ends Huh... I thought it was "It's October third" from Mean Girls
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 17:15
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:Welcome to my life. Astronomers throughout ages were really fond of random rear end garbage units they case up on the spot. For example, siriometre. All of science needs a drat good kicking. Shake out all the stupid measurements. I still do not understand why parsecs are a thing. Why not just use light years? I mean, look at it:  Why?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 17:49
|
|
|
Megillah Gorilla posted:All of science needs a drat good kicking. Shake out all the stupid measurements.  so a parsec... is the distance at which one AU of tangential displacement creates 1 degree of observable progression?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 18:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 03:40 |
|
|
Not a degree, a second.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 18:21
|
|