• 0 Posts
  • 35 Comments
Joined 10 months ago
cake
Cake day: December 6th, 2023

help-circle
  • I mean,that’s all there is to say really. I know the fediverse is broken up into different, interconnected domains, but literally any one of them could be monetized by their domain owner. Obviously we would all just block that domain/move to another, but it’s not an impossibility.

    Mostly I’m just saying, “don’t get complacent, they could always pull the rug from under us.”




  • Almost 90% of lemmy is ex-redittors.

    I have become very tiresome with how those mods seems to be on some sort of power trip

    In my experience, that’s only on lemmy.ml and maybe one or two other instances. If you go there, just know the entire vibe there is (seemingly) “westerners bad, liberals bad, all hail communism cause capitalism is a western liberal ideal!” or some other variation of that whole backwards ideology.

    There’s a couple instances that have their heads so far up their own asses that they’ve become their own Adam’s Apple, and those ones are usually just mods going on power trips because someone called them a bad name.

    Ultimately this place is hardly different than reddit, aside from not being a corporate megastructure that will sell your post history to the highest bidder (but that might change, so stay vigilant). You’ll learn what instances/subcommunities are worth seeing–and which ones are best avoided–in time.







  • or a state school like me, you’re taking pot shots at my degree. And so while I agree with the sentiment,

    Lol imagine thinking this is a slight against you.

    Anyway comparing your intellectual degree, to your sports scholarship, is stupid. You’re there for your muscles, not your brains, and even your school ride proves that. Get saltier.



  • That’s pretty much how it is. In ancient times, planets would have been objects that were distinguishable from stars in ways they had the ability to differentiate from. For example, with a telescope, any object that doesn’t shine like a star, that moves across the sky at a different rate than the stars, or maybe has visible rings.

    Then once science found things that past science couldn’t account for, they redefined what a planet was, according to its size/gravitational pull or other factors, and which Pluto didn’t fit. Apparently due to Pluto’s small size, it’s not even a dwarf-planet, and by that measure is basically just a really big asteroid (we even know of asteroids that are bigger than Pluto).


  • Yeah this is the correct take. Either Pluto (and by extension, any object of similar size) is a planet, which would mean there’s thousands of Pluto-sized planets in the solar system; or pluto is ‘too small’ to be a planet. Which is the answer they (Sci community) settled on, because if every comet/asteroid is within the threshold definition of ‘planet’ then there would be no point in distinguishing planets at all.

    Kinda like how we have dwarf-stars and supermassive stars 1000x bigger than our sun. If they were all the same size there would be no point defining them beyond ‘star’.




  • Crowfiend@lemmy.worldtoScience Memes@mander.xyzMythbusters
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    3 months ago

    So why is it represented as 99.999… Instead of just 100? It’s because you’re forgetting the fact that fractions and decimals are infinite depending on the magnification. 99.9999… literally goes on forever. That means that no matter how close it gets to 100, it will never be equivalent to 100.

    It’s like how you can know infinitely nothing and still think you know everything. 👀🫠


  • Crowfiend@lemmy.worldtoScience Memes@mander.xyzMythbusters
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    3 months ago

    It only signifies that the post-decimal nines are repeating infinitely. It still doesn’t make 99.99999…=100 unless you intentionally round the value for some nondescript reason, and even then, rounding off isn’t changing the value, only the perceived value for mathematical simplicity, not objective accuracy.