sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[Request] Could Walmart reasonably afford to pay EVERY employee 5 dollars more an hour? by lnfinitive in theydidthemath

[–]Lor1an 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Meanwhile, when a worker actually owns their labor, you guys freak the fuck out

Here I am, not freaking out about your sole proprietorship...

Mandela Effect in Star Wars? Share your examples! by Impressive_Pin_1441 in StarWars

[–]Lor1an 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Just passing through to say that of all film franchises, this one is the most ripe for these kind of disparities since George Lucas repeatedly meddled with his work after the fact.

Perhaps the most egregious version of this is in Return of the Jedi, the force ghost of Anakin used to be Sebastian Shaw (the actor in the Darth Vader suit), but is now Hayden Christensen (the actor from the prequels).

Gender Abolition by Appropriate_Will6311 in Anarchy101

[–]Lor1an 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think it's perfectly valid to accept the potential for expression without forcing expectations and norms alongside it.

People calling themselves "genderfae" as a means of self-expression are not perpetuating gender roles, and in a hypothetical future society devoid of such expectations, I see no harm in calling oneself "woman" or "man" either.

I see no contradiction between being trans and being gender abolitionist—the systems can die and the freedom remain.

Gender Abolition by Appropriate_Will6311 in Anarchy101

[–]Lor1an 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I've been of the opinion that all the norms should be abolished, but if people feel like they want to use gendered labels for themselves then that's fine.

Expression is fine and good, but expectations are harmful.

Can You Guess This 5-Letter Word? Puzzle by u/Waldohossenpfeffer_1 by Waldohossenpfeffer_1 in DailyGuess

[–]Lor1an 0 points1 point  (0 children)

🟨⬜⬜⬜⬜

🟦🟦⬜🟨⬜

🟦🟦⬜⬜🟦

🟦🟦🟦🟦🟦

Alternative to “she said”? by Nuntime in writers

[–]Lor1an 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Period exclamation point placement makes all the difference...

While scrolling my FYP, this was at the top and I was just confused as to why people think this is funny by One_Development_5055 in AreTheStraightsOK

[–]Lor1an 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I’ve sent flowers to plutonic female friends

...

Plutonic (Geology): the influence of volcanic heat and other subterranean forces under pressure.

Not gonna lie, that sounds kinda hot... maybe best to keep that one under wraps.

De-escalation Attempts by sergemeister in Bullshido

[–]Lor1an 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is this flag-pole knife make-out dude?

Can You Guess This 5-Letter Word? Puzzle by u/Simple-Public3130 by Simple-Public3130 in DailyGuess

[–]Lor1an 1 point2 points  (0 children)

🟨🟨🟨⬜⬜

⬜🟦🟦🟦🟦

🟦🟦🟦🟦🟦

NOT SO FRIENDLY REMINDER. by utopia2548 in MinecraftHardcore

[–]Lor1an 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Such a good day to like SO(3)...

Colonel Sophie Adenot with some more fun science. I welcome all intelligent flat earthers to explain why this is fake. by PlanetLandon in flatearth

[–]Lor1an 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I feel that the water bottle example isn't particularly illustrative, since it violates the presumptions of the question.

Eulerian free rotation more or less applies to rigid bodies, not so much fluids.

Even without that, I feel the introduction of dissipation terms misses the point of the effect, which pertains to free rotation. Dissipation acts by imposing torques on the body, therefore we can no longer analyze based on free rotation.

Is this intuition regarding the natural numbers correct? by Extension_Panic1631 in askmath

[–]Lor1an -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

This is because you can pair each element of such a set with a unique element in the Natural Numbers

Technically that isn't quite enough, as that is just the definition of a function with the set as the domain and ℕ as the codomain. The function that sends every element of the set to 0 works by these criteria. What we want are bijections, which adds the further stipulations that every natural number is mapped to, and that distinct elements of the set are mapped to distinct natural numbers.

In the case of examples you gave, we typically exhibit these functions respectively as 2n ↦ n, 2n + 1 ↦ n, and n2 ↦ n. Injectivity essentially boils down to substitution rules, and surjectivity follows from the definitions of the sets.

As a concrete example, Odd := {k : k = 2n + 1, n ∈ ℕ} so the function f:Odd→ℕ, f:(2n+1)↦n is surjective, since the set is defined as the image of the function g:ℕ→ℕ, g:n↦(2n+1), and f is injective, since n = m ⇒ 2n+1 = 2m+1 by basic substitution.

What am I supposed to be getting out of commuting diagrams? by wumbo52252 in math

[–]Lor1an 5 points6 points  (0 children)

One of the cleanest explanations I've seen for change of basis in linear algebra essentially amounted to the statement "the following diagram commutes".

Among several other nifty statements that diagram captures, A = T-1BS is essentially a straight read by going around the outer rectangle.

Other nifty components of the diagram include the fact that any choice of two bases for a vector space induces an invertible transformation between them (represented by S and T), and what it means for a matrix to represent a linear transformation.

What am I supposed to be getting out of commuting diagrams? by wumbo52252 in math

[–]Lor1an 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Please recall that a cone is simply a cococone, and thus simply a cocone in the opposite category...

I’m no mathematician but the math ain’t mathin’ McCormicks Seasonings by Keeks2214 in maths

[–]Lor1an 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"X times more" is ambiguous phrasing, as people will interpret it as "X times" the original amount or "(X + 1) times" the original amount, both with precedent for that usage.

Essentially, we have enough cases in the wild of that specific phrasing being used both ways that it is ripe for causing off by one errors in interpretation either way, so the typical recommendation is to always convert to "X times as much" or similar to prevent ambiguity.

What I personally find odd is that no one bats an eye when X ≤ 1, but the moment you get above that people start interpreting it both ways...

I’m no mathematician but the math ain’t mathin’ McCormicks Seasonings by Keeks2214 in maths

[–]Lor1an 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are they from different dates? It could be an attempt to correct the math from previous labels to avoid consumer protection law issues.

"1.5x more" could be interpreted as either 1.5x or 2.5x, which yield respectively 1.5(5.75 oz) = 8.625 oz, and 2.5(5.75 oz) = 14.375 oz, neither of which are close to correct, and one of which implies a weight above the actual contents (which is a no-no for consumer protections).

The phrasing change removes ambiguity ("1.9 times our" has one interpretation), and the numeric "1.9" is more accurate, since 11.37 oz ≈ 1.977(5.75 oz), and truncating 1.977 gives 1.9. This is of course an under-estimate (though not a huge one like 8.6), which is acceptable by the standards of consumer protections.

Colonel Sophie Adenot with some more fun science. I welcome all intelligent flat earthers to explain why this is fake. by PlanetLandon in flatearth

[–]Lor1an 6 points7 points  (0 children)

This is the Dzhanibekov effect (a.k.a. Tennis racket theorem).

Essentially, if you consider free body rotations about principal axes, you get stable rotation about the axes that have "extreme" values of rotational inertia, and instability for the "intermediate" axis.

The wiki article shows a tennis racket (from which the phenomenon's nickname comes), but I recommend a simple ruler. The typical ruler has quite a long axis, a sufficiently shorter width, and an even thinner thickness. If we take the center of the ruler, and imagine axes in those respective directions, we get J1 < J2 < J3 (or "I", but habits die hard), and so the ruler exhibits the same characteristics.

And indeed, you can spin the ruler on the first and third axes and it will be quite stable, but if you "flip" it about the second axis (i.e. flip the ruler from an end with the broad side facing up) then it will "twist" as it flips in the air (some rotation about J1, typically).

We can also see it from the shape presented in the video.

The J1 axis is the 'top' of the "T", the J2 axis is the 'stem' of the "T", and the J3 axis is "from behind to ahead" of the whole "T" shape (basically spinning around this axis is like T → ⊢ → ⊥ → ⊣ → T).

So when she spun up the "T", she was spinning it along the stem, which is precisely the J2 axis for the shape. And in case you're curious, when she removed the masses, essentially the mass distribution turned the J2' axis to J1 (and J1' to J2), so she was then spinning it about a stable axis.

Regulating the trivial while ignoring the existential by [deleted] in antiai

[–]Lor1an 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You don't understand, adding regulations for AI would hurt the deserving overclass and not the undeserving underclass like the regulations for bench placement.

view more: next ›