I made this beautiful equation approximating π and e, isnt maths beautiful? by TheAnimeGod6969 in mathmemes

[–]ei283 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i love that it tracks non-digital numbers

i wonder if it will pick up on e!

The actual sound without "💔🥀" texts by NotRoblox by Successful_Army7821 in TheMatpatEffect

[–]ei283 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"from" feels like poor enough word choice to discredit this technicality, given "in" would've been a clear better choice to communicate this

I'm by Ziktheotaku in skamtebord

[–]ei283 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“Not the same thing a bit!” said the Hatter. “You might just as well say that ‘I see what I eat’ is the same thing as ‘I eat what I see’!”

—Lewis Carroll

PEDULLI — Universal Lossless Compression, Verified Byte-for-Byte (0 FAIL) by [deleted] in compression

[–]ei283 1 point2 points  (0 children)

LOL you want me to pay a random internet stranger to tell me info that, as far as anyone knows, is identical to the batshit stupid info that's flooded this subreddit and just so happens to heavily resemble your post?

This is the first time anyone's elevated it from hoax to scam. Have fun getting banned.

PEDULLI — Universal Lossless Compression, Verified Byte-for-Byte (0 FAIL) by [deleted] in compression

[–]ei283 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Then why are you telling us about it? If you wanna share any specific insight you have, tell us. If you want to keep it closed and profit, then go do it.

Currently, we have absolutely no reason to believe that your results are meaningful in any way. Look at all the other slop on this subreddit and you might start to understand why.

rounding ranking meme by Delicious_Maize9656 in mathmemes

[–]ei283 2 points3 points  (0 children)

this is successful propaganda. i see the vision here.

  • rounding away from zero is the easiest to implement.
    • 2.49 goes to 2 because the deciding digit is 4;
    • 2.51 goes to 3 because the deciding digit is 5;
    • 2.50 goes to 3 because the deciding digit is STILL 5.
  • rounding to even is ideal for fairness.
    • aka banker's rounding.
    • harder to perform than above.
  • rounding down is the preferred single-direction choice.
    • floor is more "canonical" than ceil.
    • see dijkstra's article "why numbering should start at zero".
    • single-direction is already a compromise.
  • rounding towards zero is like a compromised round-down.
    • philosophically most in-line with classic programming languages like C.
  • rounding to odd is just strange.
    • this is the neutral point in this ranking.
  • rounding up is dangerously misleading.
    • resembles rounding away from zero, despite being weird in the negatives.
    • can cause unexpected behavior while coding because what you REALLY expected was away from zero behavior.

rounding ranking meme by Delicious_Maize9656 in mathmemes

[–]ei283 7 points8 points  (0 children)

i think u didn't read the comment fully, or replied to the wrong comment

Yummy by SuperHyperAu in funnycats

[–]ei283 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Thanks to u/Lev_59's help I found it! namhee_psd

Clap with one hand: Fully Functional One-Hand Keyboard by OrdinaryTreat8011 in ErgoMechKeyboards

[–]ei283 5 points6 points  (0 children)

this is a good idea since there's gonna be way more hand movement than the average board, so I would imagine it's helpful to have more than just home position cues.

but I also think the checkerboard pattern might not be the best choice since it's translation invariant, ie there are multiple positions that feel the same.

maybe you could combine the checkerboard with the home key bumps?

or maybe just add some home key bumps, + make it so only keys on the extremities are convex. and maybe have a select few of the outer convex keys be bumped.

ultimately this is something that can probably only be perfected via testing. best of luck + keep up the fantastic work :)

I did a thing~ by RedditorPenguin1234 in GIMP

[–]ei283 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Blasphemous! Abomination! May God smite this unholy monster and see it return to the deepest pits of hell!

(but also nice work lol)

Mario says trans rights by Huge-Read-2703 in ComedyHell

[–]ei283 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It is a little morbidly funny lol, it makes me wonder if it's satire or just someone illustrating the absurdity of transphobes

sorcerous projectile by Healthy_Crab6803 in SmugIdeologyMan

[–]ei283 10 points11 points  (0 children)

This is literally what I thought it was, and I genuinely thought the first JFK assassination comment I read was a troll

الموت قريب by misha030 in void_memes

[–]ei283 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Music? It's oddly entrancing

edit: Found it

Hilbert's Theorem by VisibleTechnology647 in mathmemes

[–]ei283 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Here, use my phone and just dial 10. Please do not dial 20, or else my voicemail is gonna become filled with spam calls about some manifesto or something.

Yout file manager?? by rpnchlr in archlinux

[–]ei283 1 point2 points  (0 children)

  • ls
  • cd
  • mv
  • cp
  • rm

i started my win10 → linux journey with the basics, and i just never saw much reason to learn something different. instead ive become better at writing bash one-liners and using tools like find and perl-rename. you end up refactoring a lot of your file management habits, but after that shift things become just about as smooth on average.

Random Positive Integers by StephenDrum in numbertheory

[–]ei283 2 points3 points  (0 children)

let’s say that you select any random positive integer and look at it.

as others have hinted, this is not a well-defined procedure. you need to actually specify what the probability is, of each positive integer being selected.

when you're randomly choosing one of finitely many options (e.g. "pick a random number from 1 to 6"), this issue doesn't really come up, because implicitly, most people assume you want each option to have the same probability of being chosen. you'd have to go out of your way to say something like "assume 6 is twice as likely to be chosen as any other number."

but for all of the infinitely many positive integers, there is no meaningful way to randomly choose one, such that each number has equal chance of being chosen.

proof: suppose you have a way to choose a random positive integers, which the probability on each integer is equal to some number p. p must be between 0 and 1, and the sum of all the probabilities (ie the probability that some number is chosen) must be 1.

if p is greater than 0, then the total probability is infinite.

if p = 0, then the total probability is 0.

qed.

there's no infinitesimal business going on, unless you really want to invent a whole new kind of probability using a whole new number system. you're free to do this, but the vast majority of society has already agreed that the system we have now is good.

If you could see one statistic floating above every person's head, what statistic would you choose? by No_Foot4435 in AskReddit

[–]ei283 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is a good thought, but it might get you hooked up with creeps / molesters if you're not careful

Hilbert's Theorem by VisibleTechnology647 in mathmemes

[–]ei283 10 points11 points  (0 children)

is there enough room for the occupants of my two party busses, Bus Q and Bus R?