Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
fart simpson
Jul 2, 2005

DEATH TO AMERICA
:xickos:

MononcQc posted:

I'll refer here again to my prior point in this very post about the issue being one of encoding and decoding, and therefore of building the common ground for these to align better. The issue we're going to run into sooner or later are whether the context includes values and upbringing (it most likely does), and therefore whether part of accurate-enough encoding and decoding of words for meaning has the ability to include this construction of the self into its definition. If so, you will have a hard time drawing a clear-cut boundary between "the word choice was bad" and "the idea behind the word choice was a consequence of past experience" and bringing clarification may necessarily involve re-examining people's own stances.

As such, one could argue that "paying you as little money as possible" will imply a re-examination of what we mean by "paying" (and the concepts behind the exchanges of goods and services), the idea of "little", of "possible", and also of "money." One may very well find that both sides of the argument, given the proper context both agree on what money and paying means, but that "as little as possible" is a point of contention that may be redefined and agreed upon with sufficient discussion to reinterpret the events properly.

nope this is just word games. the point is that people have different, fundamental interests that sometimes conflict in irreconcilable ways. in those situations you can’t really “agree” because what’s good for you is not good for me

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

echinopsis
Apr 13, 2004

by Fluffdaddy
words have no inherent meaning

without subjectivity, all reality is fundamentally without meaning or form or boundary

Captain Foo
May 11, 2004

we vibin'
we slidin'
we breathin'
we dyin'

fart simpson posted:

nope this is just word games. the point is that people have different, fundamental interests that sometimes conflict in irreconcilable ways. in those situations you can’t really “agree” because what’s good for you is not good for me

when you post it it’s not good for me

prisoner of waffles
May 8, 2007

Ah! well a-day! what evil looks
Had I from old and young!
Instead of the cross, the fishmech
About my neck was hung.

fart simpson posted:

nope this is just word games. the point is that people have different, fundamental interests that sometimes conflict in irreconcilable ways. in those situations you can’t really “agree” because what’s good for you is not good for me

right, agreement between person P and person Q on some matter X:
  • goes from (in principle) easy to (in practice) impossible
  • depending on how compatible or incompatible P and Q’s interests and values are
  • and whether X is anodyne or controversial given the interests and values (whether compatible or contradictory in whole or part) of P and Q

terms and conditions apply but I think this not a terrible nor overly labored elaboration of fart simpson’s point. and his statement explains a fundamental (radical? should I say?) cause of many thorny disagreements

echinopsis
Apr 13, 2004

by Fluffdaddy
what

fart simpson
Jul 2, 2005

DEATH TO AMERICA
:xickos:


right, agreement between person P and person Q on some matter X:
goes from (in principle) easy to (in practice) impossible
depending on how compatible or incompatible P and Q’s interests and values are
and whether X is anodyne or controversial given the interests and values (whether compatible or contradictory in whole or part) of P and Q

terms and conditions apply but I think this not a terrible nor overly labored elaboration of fart simpson’s point. and his statement explains a fundamental (radical? should I say?) cause of many thorny disagreements

echinopsis
Apr 13, 2004

by Fluffdaddy
many horny disagreements huh

Roosevelt
Jul 18, 2009

I'm looking for the man who shot my paw.

in a well actually posted:

there’s a meme about American idioms vs English vs Germans (iirc?) that lays out the various levels of enthusiasm where “that’s okay” is earth shattering endorsement from one but extremely negative from the other

sometimes my wife will ask me if i want to do something, and i'll say "sure" instead of "yes", and somehow she takes that to mean "emphatically no"

echinopsis
Apr 13, 2004

by Fluffdaddy
you need more passion in your voice

Gnossiennes
Jan 7, 2013


Loving chairs more every day!

Roosevelt posted:

sometimes my wife will ask me if i want to do something, and i'll say "sure" instead of "yes", and somehow she takes that to mean "emphatically no"

my husband does this too, and gets frustrated whenever i just say "sure" to something. i'm glad i'm not alone!!

Sagebrush
Feb 26, 2012

How does "sure" turn into "emphatically no?" Are they interpreting it as a sarcastic dismissal? Were they raised in a really toxic household where people talked like that all the time?

shitface
Nov 23, 2006

when I moved to the US from the UK it took me some time to realize why, when someone asked me how I am and I gave a (British) typical answer of "ok" or "alright" or similar, they appeared to think I was suicidal or something. seems nothing less than disingenuous enthusiasm is expected

echinopsis
Apr 13, 2004

by Fluffdaddy
sometimes sure comes across as “I don’t really want to but sure I guess we can”

Roosevelt
Jul 18, 2009

I'm looking for the man who shot my paw.

echinopsis posted:

sometimes sure comes across as “I don’t really want to but sure I guess we can”

i guess it's this. i probably say "sure" more often when she asks me things like if i can take out the trash, or go to work, or put pants on

Gnossiennes
Jan 7, 2013


Loving chairs more every day!

yeah, that's how he takes it. and generally for me, "sure" just means, "well it's not something i'm genuinely super stoked about, but it sounds pleasant enough :shrug:"

echinopsis
Apr 13, 2004

by Fluffdaddy
say “sure thing boss” instead

Salt Fish
Sep 11, 2003

Cybernetic Crumb
A gigabyte is 1024^3 bytes and its not up to hard drive manufacturers to make up new units. The IEC can suck my dick because I don't give a poo poo about the metric system prefixes.

Salt Fish
Sep 11, 2003

Cybernetic Crumb

quote:

US lawsuits
A lawsuit decided in 2019 that arose from alleged breach of contract and other claims over the binary and decimal definitions used for "gigabyte" have ended in favor of the manufacturers, with courts holding that the legal definition of gigabyte or GB is 1 GB = 1,000,000,000 (109) bytes (the decimal definition). Specifically, the courts held that "the U.S. Congress has deemed the decimal definition of gigabyte to be the 'preferred' one for the purposes of 'U.S. trade and commerce' .... The California Legislature has likewise adopted the decimal system for all 'transactions in this state'."[2]

This is some "ketchup is a vegetable" poo poo. It's 1024^bytes.

Sagebrush
Feb 26, 2012

Salt Fish posted:

A gigabyte is 1024^3 bytes and its not up to hard drive manufacturers to make up new units.

gotta agree

Deep Dish Fuckfest
Sep 6, 2006

Advanced
Computer Touching


Toilet Rascal
old fossils still resisting the all-consuming embrace of the metric system itt

Silver Alicorn
Mar 30, 2008

𝓪 𝓻𝓮𝓭 𝓹𝓪𝓷𝓭𝓪 𝓲𝓼 𝓪 𝓬𝓾𝓻𝓲𝓸𝓾𝓼 𝓼𝓸𝓻𝓽 𝓸𝓯 𝓬𝓻𝓮𝓪𝓽𝓾𝓻𝓮
for all intensive purposes,

echinopsis
Apr 13, 2004

by Fluffdaddy

Deep Dish Fuckfest posted:

old fossils still resisting the all-consuming embrace of the metric system itt

an inch is defined as 25.4 mm :smugmrgw:

echinopsis
Apr 13, 2004

by Fluffdaddy

Salt Fish posted:

This is some "ketchup is a vegetable" poo poo. It's 1024^bytes.

what’s the deal with mebibytes

and also wtf is with data connections being expressed as bits rather than bytes? does bits mean raw throughout including parity or redundancy etc whereas bytes means fully received completed bytes??

or is it simple one is a number 8 times as big as another


and more importantly than any of these when did we drop the nybble

echinopsis
Apr 13, 2004

by Fluffdaddy
and why isn’t it byt

prisoner of waffles
May 8, 2007

Ah! well a-day! what evil looks
Had I from old and young!
Instead of the cross, the fishmech
About my neck was hung.
The binary byte units and their abbreviations (mebibyte, gibibyte, etc and MiB GiB etc) are a principled way to say “I know some people measure bytes the wrong way, but not me.”

Salt Fish
Sep 11, 2003

Cybernetic Crumb
The principled thing is to say megabyte and mean 1024 kilobytes, but you never clarify it or explain it because that's what it means.

echinopsis
Apr 13, 2004

by Fluffdaddy
from first principles , a mega unit means a million of and so a mega byte is a million bytes


but mfs here arguing that we should let some sands inability to grasp the decimal system define our definition of mega for its snowflake case

Sagebrush
Feb 26, 2012

bytes are an archaic concept anyway. we don't use 8-bit computers anymore so there's no particular reason to group data that way. everything should just be measured in bits.

Deep Dish Fuckfest
Sep 6, 2006

Advanced
Computer Touching


Toilet Rascal

echinopsis posted:

what’s the deal with mebibytes

and also wtf is with data connections being expressed as bits rather than bytes? does bits mean raw throughout including parity or redundancy etc whereas bytes means fully received completed bytes??

or is it simple one is a number 8 times as big as another


and more importantly than any of these when did we drop the nybble

and what's the deal with bauds anyways?

Deep Dish Fuckfest
Sep 6, 2006

Advanced
Computer Touching


Toilet Rascal

Sagebrush posted:

bytes are an archaic concept anyway. we don't use 8-bit computers anymore so there's no particular reason to group data that way. everything should just be measured in bits.

it's usually the smallest directly addressable unit, so it kinda makes sense

echinopsis
Apr 13, 2004

by Fluffdaddy
one thing that forever does my head in about SI units is that for example the default unit of volume is a litre

the default unit of a distance is a metre

and so on


except

the default unit of weight is a kilogram, not a gram


when we’re doing drug calculations regarding concentrations you need to specify if say 1% means volume in volume or weight in volume and if it’s weight in volume then 1% means 10mg/mL and 100% (if it was possible) would mean 1g/mL (or 1kg/L)




we were doing experimental calcs the other day and the other pharmacists can do ordinary calcs like how many total mg in 5mL of 0.5% solution but we had to do some to work out how much chlorine to put in a pool and usually they rely on some tricks to do their calcs rather than work it out from first principles and they couldn’t do this calc and when I was trying to explain how to work it out it was just utterly lost on them that a kilo unit of weight is equivalent to a non-kilo unit of volume for the purposes of concentration calculations

Sagebrush
Feb 26, 2012

well if you changed the default unit to be the gram then you'd also have to change the default volume unit to the millilitre. it's just hosed.

echinopsis
Apr 13, 2004

by Fluffdaddy
:argh: the french :argh:

Salt Fish
Sep 11, 2003

Cybernetic Crumb
Just because you put the letters M-E-G-A into a word doesn't mean its an SI prefix. For example, the megazord is not built out of 1 million other zords.

echinopsis
Apr 13, 2004

by Fluffdaddy

Sagebrush posted:

well if you changed the default unit to be the gram then you'd also have to change the default volume unit to the millilitre.

why

I mean we can’t go back in time and so we’re stuck with what we’ve got but if they’d have thought ahead for two seconds they might have made a gram the equivalent of a litre of water

echinopsis
Apr 13, 2004

by Fluffdaddy

Salt Fish posted:

Just because you put the letters M-E-G-A into a word doesn't mean its an SI prefix. For example, the megazord is not built out of 1 million other zords.

yes it is that’s what mega means

Deep Dish Fuckfest
Sep 6, 2006

Advanced
Computer Touching


Toilet Rascal

echinopsis posted:

when we’re doing drug calculations regarding concentrations you need to specify if say 1% means volume in volume or weight in volume and if it’s weight in volume then 1% means 10mg/mL and 100% (if it was possible) would mean 1g/mL (or 1kg/L)

the weight in volume thing is weird. normally if you're dealing with ratios the units should cancel out (like they do for the volume example). but now you've got two different units. in physics that's usually a sign you hosed up or whatever you're doing doesn't make sense

must be something a pharmacist came up with while high on their own supply

Sagebrush
Feb 26, 2012

i am reminded of how marie curie was upset that the original value of the Curie, the unit for radioactive emission, would be defined by the radiation emitted by a infinitesimally small amount of radium (radium being extraordinarily radioactive). so she insisted that it be the amount of radiation emitted by one gram of radium instead, an extremely dangerous quantity, and because she was so famous they agreed. so we now commonly speak of fractions of microcuries, and if you ever see a whole Curie you're probably going to die

Salt Fish
Sep 11, 2003

Cybernetic Crumb

echinopsis posted:

yes it is that’s what mega means

The mega millions jackpot is not one million millions.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Sagebrush
Feb 26, 2012

when mega is not referring to one million, it refers to four (unreal tournament, 2004, "mega kill").

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply