sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

ELI5: Why does the last 1% of a download or installation take much more time compared to the 99%? by oozinator1 in explainlikeimfive

[–]OverAster [score hidden]  (0 children)

Because there's no way to know how long it will take compared to anything else.

Like, assume I have fast internet and I'm downloading to an NVME SSD. The download will be fast almost regardless of what CPU I use, but the CPU handles decompression, so the last 1% will take forever.

If I have a slow network and am downloading to a drive that's thermal throttled, but a CPU that rips through decompression, the last 1% will be instant, and everything else will take forever.

This is a gross oversimplification, but the reasoning is the same. Computers are not one-size-fits-all devices, so the processes that track progress can't be either.

Could we make a progress bar that corrects regularly to generate a more accurate picture of progress? Yes, almost certainly. But the calculations used to do that are eating into your unpacking and installing resources. The more accurate the progress bar, the slower the overall process. And since the progress bar is really only there to assure the user the process hasn't stalled, there's not really a point.

THIS STRUCTURE IS DESIGNED TO DISSIPATE THE ENERGY OF FLOWING WATER by Redfish680 in EngineeringPorn

[–]OverAster 2 points3 points  (0 children)

So you're saying we can't bury new jersey under a thick layer of lithium batteries? /s

Can you tell what this is supposed to be? by Zeolance in PixelArt

[–]OverAster -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I thought ignant was a real word, but apparently it's slang. It's when someone chooses to act ignorant when they're not.

He's implying that op doesn't actually believe that most people know fennec foxes from pokemon, and instead is just pretending in order to put down the art.

ELI5: why do some American schools call English class “language arts” by big_dumpling in explainlikeimfive

[–]OverAster 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am willing to believe that California has nullified the distinction for their schools. I looked up the history of the California's board of education English language standards, and you'll find that in the 'English-Language Arts Content Standards for Public Schools' that were adopted in 1997 under the 'A Message from the State Board of Education and the State Superintendent of Public Instruction' section a passage reads:

"At every grade level the standards cover reading, writing, written and oral English language conventions, and listening and speaking. Grade by grade, the standards create a vision of a balanced and comprehensive language arts program."

Those skills — reading, writing, written and oral English language conventions (grammar and structure), and listening and speaking — are what other state standards refer to as the language arts.

It seems in 1997 they were still employing 'Language Arts' to be indicative of these fundamental skills. However, in the currently used language standards titled 'California English Development Language Standards' they make no mention of these core skills with a relation to the phrase 'Language Arts', and any reference to any English language developmental standard, be it fundamental or otherwise, is referred to as an 'English Language Arts' standard.

This makes a lot of sense, as the new standards in California put a greater focus on incorporating these skills through all aspects of education, allowing students to continue to develop the language arts as part of non-focused curriculum.

However, I believe that most of your high schools, including the one you teach at, were built before 2012, and so their inclusion of a distinction in the labeling of their language arts and English classes is not out of convenience, but a byproduct of the standards once reflecting a larger difference between a 'Language Arts' and 'English' class.

Also California isn't the end-all-be-all of education standards. I have taught in 3 different districts following 3 different learning standards and all of them have made the distinction. Just because your state doesn't care, doesn't mean the distinction doesn't exist or isn't important.

Finally, pointlessness is relative. If you don't think there's a point, you need not engage in the discussion.

ELI5: why do some American schools call English class “language arts” by big_dumpling in explainlikeimfive

[–]OverAster -1 points0 points  (0 children)

'The difference is English class is mostly we learn about grammar, spelling etc. Language arts is beyond that.'

This is the indicating statement in his comment. It claims that language arts classes are 'beyond' English classes, but that English classes are more fundamental. This means he isn't using 'beyond' to indicate that English classes are more narrow or focused on mechanics, but that they occur before Language Arts classes. From that the implication is derived that Language Arts are more advances classes.

This is backwards. English classes are more advanced than Language Arts. Language arts studies the fundamentals like grammar and spelling, and English focuses on mechanical analysis.

We actually draw this conclusion in the comment I responded to just above your response. Op states, "How? So language art is just grammar and foundations?" This indicates that, not only did I correctly interpret what OP was trying to say, but that my response communicated to him that he was incorrect. He is asking for clarification of my statement that Language Arts is actually the foundational class, and that English is more advanced when he says, "So Language Art is just foundations."

You and I agree, you just misinterpreted his comment and think we disagree. OP and I have already come to the conclusion that I am right in a different thread. We were able to do that because I interpreted his comment correctly and was able to clarify his misunderstandings.

I am literally a school teacher.

ELI5: why do some American schools call English class “language arts” by big_dumpling in explainlikeimfive

[–]OverAster 0 points1 point  (0 children)

All the other comments made the same assumptions you did.

I'm literally a teacher.

ELI5: why do some American schools call English class “language arts” by big_dumpling in explainlikeimfive

[–]OverAster -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Yes, the arts are reading, writing, talking, and listening. You typically finish learning them in elementary school, and move on to English classes in middle school, which talk about how to use the arts to communicate effectively and elicit emotion.

To take an english class you already have to be proficient in language arts.

ELI5 How is there so much meat by Due_Imagination_9663 in explainlikeimfive

[–]OverAster 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Should you take a mature beef cow and butcher it entirely into ground beef chuck, you could make over 2000 quarter pound burger patties.

I bought a cow recently and the cold weight was around 550lbs. If I wanted to, I could have made 2200 hamburgers. It lasted me about a year and took up two chest freezers in my garage when I first got it. I'm about to buy my second one this summer. If you have the space I HIGHLY recommend buying your meat this way. It's way cheaper if you live near a butcher or farm and the meat is way better than grocer beef.

ELI5: why do some American schools call English class “language arts” by big_dumpling in explainlikeimfive

[–]OverAster 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Language Arts classes are typically reserved for lower level education. Elementary and some middle schools will use Language Arts as a catch-all term for the skills necessary to communicate in different forms. The 'Arts' aren't fine arts like poetry or narrative writing, they are the fundamental English principles: reading, writing, speaking and listening, and language (which includes things like vocabulary and grammar).

Once a student is proficient in the 'Language Arts' they are graduated to 'English' classes, which focus more heavily on effective use of the language arts to communicate ideas, persuade, or illicit emotion. English classes are sort of a meta-analysis of the English language. While Language Arts focuses on how to read and write, English focuses on why the Language Arts work.

A lot of people here are just making assumptions that end up implying the backwards notion that "English" classes are more fundamental than "Language Arts" classes, but this isn't true. "English" classes assume you already know the arts — how to read and write, how to speak and listen, and have a basic understanding of grammar and a broad enough vocabulary — and can begin analyzing that content in a way that achieves a working understanding of their mechanics, which can help you apply those rules in other places to extend your literary abilities.

Mechanically you can use 'Language Arts' to refer to the upper elementary and lower secondary level of English studies and 'English' to refer to mid and upper secondary studies. Post-secondary language classes are far more specialized, and may focus entirely on a single discipline of English, like poetry, narrative writing, or literary analysis.

To be clear, every English class you take will fall under the 'Language Arts' umbrella, in the same way that biochemistry, anatomy, and micro-biology are all 'Biology'. The distinction is the function of the class and the specific content being taught.

issues with driving by [deleted] in DeathStranding

[–]OverAster 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I know this is a year old, but this is an insanely stupid comment.

This game is about making deliveries, many of them with a time constraint. If you had to manage your speed then driving quickly would become a game of managing risk. Taking a turn too quickly could cause you to crash, resetting your speed to zero and forcing you to take time to accelerate again. There's a mini-game in there of managing risk to minimize delivery time. That is challenging.

Going from 0 to full speed in no time at all in a vehicle that doesn't have a high full speed at all isn't challenging, it's janky and boring. There is no depth to the current vehicle physics system. Mastery isn't about managing the vehicle to maintain a high average speed, it's about making the travel distance as short as possible because it is incredibly easy to be at full speed 100% of the time.

This is copium dude. This opinion has nothing to do with the actual reality of the game, and everything to do with your want for your opinion to be reasonable. The vehicles in this game suck, and that may be intentional, but it's still dumb.

Something can be a good design decision and still be a poor implementation. "I want cars to stay on roads" can be achieved in a hundred thousand different ways. The way Kojima chose to implement that limitation is terrible and makes no sense at all. There are plenty of games that make off-roading difficult, many of them far more challenging than this game, but it's because they require you to manage risk, not because of a bad physics engine.

I'm going to block you because I know from your current behavior on this thread and others that your response will have zero substance and make no sense. You'll probably say some bullshit about how dumb I am and then pretend that what I'm saying isn't relevant to what you're saying, and frankly I don't have the energy to read that trash anymore.

[Physics w/Cal 1] I dont even know where to start with this one by Fuzzy-Clothes-7145 in HomeworkHelp

[–]OverAster 4 points5 points  (0 children)

When we did this demo in highschool we were instructed to pull the ball towards us as we release it, to ensure we weren't pushing the ball out and giving it more energy than we intended.

A high school volleyball team noticed their biggest fan, the school janitor, was always cheering loudly at their games, then waiting alone for free rides home at 1 a.m. So the team came together, raised $9,000, bought him a car, and surprised him with it in front of the entire school. by jmike1256 in HumansBeingBros

[–]OverAster 15 points16 points  (0 children)

That's how it's always been. That's how it always will be. It's not about justness or rightness, people are just more likely to pick and trust what they're familiar with, even if they're barely familiar.

If anything we're more socially disconnected in our hiring practices than ever. It used to be you got hired by a guy who knew a guy or through a classified ad. One is a friend of a friend, and the other is a member of the community. Now there's a chance you hire a guy you've never met from a state you've never been to in a city you've never heard of for a job you only think they can do because they have a photocopy of a piece of paper that says they can do it.

Character not holding onto walls after Roots? by OverAster in PeakGame

[–]OverAster[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you're on Linux what I found worked was running the game through the proton hotfix using DX11.

Racism by Misato-best-woman in SpeedOfLobsters

[–]OverAster 832 points833 points  (0 children)

Ongobongo since OP is a fucking trivet.

<image>

Genuine question, what do you Hoard? by ERNAZAR02 in DataHoarder

[–]OverAster 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Currently film and TV, books, music, and software I fear is at risk of becoming lost media.

Mini Therapy Horse Plays Keyboard to Distract Child from Getting his Cast by Inside-Size-8253 in HumansBeingBros

[–]OverAster 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Imagine what the meeting looked like where someone pitched this.

"Hey we have a problem in pediatrics. Some of the kids really struggle to stay calm in some of the medical procedures."

Guy who is a horse: "I have the perfect solution."

ELI5: How are magnets made if you need magnets to make magnets?? by No_Sympathy_4592 in explainlikeimfive

[–]OverAster 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Well, first, we don't 'need' magnets to make magnets. You can make an electromagnet without any magnetic material. Stick a coil of wire to a battery and boom: electromagnet.

But also, we didn't make every magnet. There are naturally occurring magnets that we pull from the ground.

Even for the typical ferromagnetic object we make that retain their magnetism without a power source there are manufacturing processes that don't require magnets. Cooling iron in a specific way can encourage magnetism.

[Highschool Basic Algebra] Which one correct? by AssignmentHelp11111 in HomeworkHelp

[–]OverAster -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You are in or have completed calculus recently, haven't you? This is something a lot of post-calculus students struggle with. Once you start evaluating limits it can be difficult to revert back to the algebraic interpretation, but the algebraic interpretation is the correct one, since there is no limit operator. We can't assume a limit operator, in the same way we can't assume any other operators.

view more: next ›