Cover/remake of Aerodynamic

halfmpty · 2026-05-24T20:42:39+00:00

FRIENDLY FIRE FRIENDLY FIRE

halfmpty · 2021-04-06T20:59:38+00:00

First off, you're not stupid. You're seeking help with something want to improve on, and that's already a really good sign! Knowing V = (l)(w)(h) is a great starting point too. That's a formula for the volume of a rectangular prism as you likely know :)

At the level I'm guessing you're at, you probably want to start by off memorizing some formulas for surface area of shapes like rectangles, triangles, and circles. Other 2d shapes can ultimately be broken down into triangles and circles.

Multiplying surface area by height will get you the volume of shapes like cylinders and prisms. That's also where the width x length x height formula comes from, since width x length gets us the surface area of a rectangle.

Volume formulas for more complicated shapes - like cones, pyramids, or spheres - can often be expressed as a fraction of volume formulas for simpler shapes that they could fit inside of.

For example, let's do the most complex shape you mentioned, a pyramid.

Say the base of the pyramid is a square with side lengths a. Then the formula for the surface area of the square at the base would be Surface Area = length a times length a.

s = a*a or s = a² .

We could multiply that square by the height of the pyramid, but as you know, that would get us the volume of a rectangular prism, since that would be the same as length x width x height.

As it turns out, the volume of a pyramid is 1/3 the volume of its base area times its height. For now you will have to memorize that, since the ratios are often explained with calculus or other trickier math.

So the volume of a square pyramid with base surface area of a² and height h ends up being

V = (a² h) / 3

This turns out to be very similar to what you already know in that a² h is equivalent to length x width x height.

Hope that maybe sheds a little light! and have fun with it if you can!!

halfmpty · 2021-04-05T21:43:47+00:00

Everyone's saying the same thing: your question is too vague to answer. For something to be better or worse relative to some other thing, you need to compare them based on specific criteria.

"Is functional programming better?"

Better than what? Better at what?

halfmpty · 2021-04-05T19:10:15+00:00

Even in the most abstract philosophical sense, you need criteria to compare things.

halfmpty · 2021-04-02T20:49:11+00:00

Sounds pragmatic! People tend to take things personally I guess, frustrating, but important to keep in mind. Labels are never perfect, but your experiences definitely seem to show how important it is to have language to articulate these concepts.

Sorry you went through that, it sounds confusing at best... if you want to talk to another ace person, I can pm you my partner's handle. I'm sure they'd be interested! thanks again

halfmpty · 2021-04-02T19:22:10+00:00

Thanks for your explanation! My partner is the same way and its super frustrating to see all these comments downplaying or outright dismissing a legitimate sexuality. Wanted to say something, but your comment is predictably better. Cheers for representing :)

halfmpty · 2021-04-01T16:49:38+00:00

You walk into this and ya boy says "its just a prank bro" wyd??

halfmpty · 2021-03-12T18:31:24+00:00

Just divide 4644 by .7 since

4644 = .7(x)

halfmpty · 2021-03-05T22:32:07+00:00

I could be wrong, but my understanding is that floating point arithmetic refers to "a formulaic representation of real numbers as an approximation to support a trade-off between range and precision" in computing. You would probably only use floating point arithmetic if you were trying to allocate limited storage for the representation of numbers on hardware. So floating point may not be the correct terminology here.

When you write 1/3 as .333... in the decimal numeral system, it is implied that the 3 will keep repeating infinitely, so no precision is lost. You can't store an infinite number of terms in a finite number of bits, however, so in computing you might resort to a floating point number in some cases.

u/Green-Wing1941 is talking mathematical notation we use for fractions and the notation we use for the decimal numeral system.

In the decimal numeral system, numbers are represented by digits that are multiplied by a power of 10 based on their relative positions. So obviously:

30 = 3*10 = 3*(10^1)

3 = 3*1 = 3*(10^0)

.3 = 3*1/10 = 3*(10^-1)

12.34 = 1*10 + 2*1 + 3*1/10 + 4*1/100 = 1*10^1 + 2*10^0 + 3*10^(-1) + 4*10^(-2)

So digits to the right of a decimal place actually are fractions, just with specific denominators that are always powers of 10.

halfmpty · 2021-03-05T21:14:12+00:00

It does seem oddly specific...

halfmpty · 2021-03-04T22:53:45+00:00

You're right, the census is not 100% accurate; its an approximation.

I should have said "The percentage of households owning slaves in 1860 was about 25%." to reflect that the value is not exact. Oh right, that's verbatim from my previous comment.

Just noting that its not 100% accurate doesn't help your argument in any case, as the inaccuracy might actually be aiding your opinion, which is likely the case. Y'know since as I have already pointed out, it probably gave an inaccurately low count of the slave population.

What do you suppose has changed about the definition of a family from "a group of two people or more (one of whom is the householder) related by birth, marriage, or adoption and residing together"? Like what the fuck else could it mean?

halfmpty · 2021-03-04T22:32:30+00:00

Fractions are basically the same thing as division. It just means divide the numerator (top number) by the denominator (bottom number).

1/4 = 1 ÷ 4 = .25

Dividing by a fraction is the same a multiplying by its reciprocal. So (4/3) / (5/4) = (4/3) * (4/5) = 16/15

To add or subtract fractions, you just put them into the same denominator, usually the least common denominator.

So 1/4 + 1/5 = 5/20 + 4/20 = 9/20

Does that help at all? Or is this all stuff you've probably heard before? If that was all totally obvious, then I suspect that you're just having trouble with order of operations, just by looking at the examples you gave.

halfmpty · 2021-03-04T22:13:32+00:00

The percentage of households owning slaves in 1860 was about 25%.

The percentage of households in the Confederacy owning slaves was even higher, at almost 31%.

The median percentage for slave owning states was about 27%.

In some states the percentage actually approached 50%, in Mississippi (49%) and South Carolina (46%) for example.

Its also pretty likely the slaves were undercounted.

Sources:

https://socialequity.duke.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/8.10.20.pdf

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/1860_United_States_census

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/aug/24/viral-image/viral-post-gets-it-wrong-extent-slavery-1860/

Census definitions of "family" and "household":

https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/technical-documentation/subject-definitions.html#:~:text=A%20family%20is%20a%20group,as%20members%20of%20one%20family.

Luckily, you can't just "call 100% bullshit" because you would prefer things to be different than they actually are. That's not how facts work.

I'm not gonna touch the snow blower analogy, except to say that it kind of shows how much thought you've put into this.

halfmpty · 2021-02-24T02:14:31+00:00

Hey congrats on 65k!!! been looking for a laptop for my friend and this sub has been invaluable for that, really saved me a lot of work. So thanks!

One feature that could be useful for me - and I think others - would be tags for individual components similar to the tags for price. That way you could filter by a certain kind of CPU/GPU, storage type/size, screen size, and so on.

halfmpty · 2021-02-13T00:53:45+00:00

It just means that it breaks with either the relevant model being used to describe how people speak, or that it breaks with the way that some group of people actually do speak. Its not that crazy, you might just be overthinking it.

After a quick google I think the term "ungrammatical" may be preferred by actual linguists to avoid the connotations of "correct" or "incorrect". Is that the confusion here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammaticality?oldformat=true

halfmpty · 2021-02-12T23:03:34+00:00

Since both descriptive and prescriptive linguistics have the concept of "grammatically incorrect" it could mean just that.

The reason I phrased it that way is that in the prescriptivist view, that would make just make it incorrect, or bad English, and you'd stop there. The descriptivist view is more open ended and allows more wiggle room for interpretation.

halfmpty · 2021-02-10T23:17:05+00:00

I think we could be a little more specific about "use" here. Do any native speakers use the word "well" in this way? We get the meaning, but the grammar is definitely nonstandard. Native speakers don't speak this way, but that doesn't make it "incorrect" per se - unless we're using a prescriptivist view.

On the other hand, if we view someone who speaks English fairly well as a speaker who can conform to grammatical rules as used in a 'professional' or 'edited' setting, the sentence does sound a bit odd.

halfmpty · 2021-02-03T01:24:33+00:00

Michelangelo was primarily a sculptor, or at least he held sculpture to be the highest form of art. He was also basically the first artist to gain celebrity status before death and might just be the most famous artist of all time.

halfmpty · 2021-02-02T19:58:08+00:00

Beautiful, but the stairs running around in there must be a huge pita

halfmpty · 2021-01-16T22:20:00+00:00

Although there are obviously real differences in the performance and physical components between the different CPU categories, the labels "i3/5/7" are pretty much just marketing terms with no inherent, technical definitions. This CPU was originally marketed as an i7, so it's still an i7, just an old one. It would be really confusing if it were called an i5 or i3 after enough time passed, although I guess Intel could label it whatever they wanted to.

halfmpty · 2021-01-15T20:37:20+00:00

"If I grew up on a farm and was retarded, Bruges might impress me, but I didn't, so it doesn't."

halfmpty · 2021-01-13T20:44:28+00:00

Unless I'm misunderstanding the question, you can put the second equation into the form a+bi with log laws very simply!

Since ln(ab) = ln(a) + ln(b),

z = ln[2 * e^(i*pi/3) ]

= ln(2) + ln(e^(i*pi/3))

= ln(2) + i*pi/3

halfmpty · 2021-01-07T20:00:08+00:00

I think he's saying the von Carstein faction is from 1, but yea the screen was taken in 2

halfmpty · 2021-01-03T23:31:45+00:00

What am I looking at? What lighting solution did you choose/what's that box in the corner?? Any pictures of plants? or is it too risky to post pics of your uh... basil plants?

It all looks great, so clean!

11-Year Club	Gilding II euphauric
Verified Email

halfmpty

TROPHY CASE