It’s probably pretty important. This paper on the terminal velocity of water droplets shows an upper limit of around 10m/s. And terminal velocity is reached in under 6m.

You disputed that right here:

It’s not accurate to say we were all looking at the same image with the dress.

Why would you bring this up if not because of my comment?

I wasn’t saying everyone was looking at the same image. I’m saying the optical illusion still works when using a single image.

We clearly do not share a sense of humor.

You can’t use a color picker see color fringing due to subpixel rendering. (There’s tons of info about this for font rendering). Your display doesn’t map pixels 1-to-1 in most cases. But like I said in my edit, I’m fairly sure that part is irrelevant here.

The blue/gold dress was not related to screenshotting and compression. People were arguing about the color even when looking at the exact same image. It all depends on which color temperature the dress was lit with. Noone can know for sure, and your brain just picks one (maybe depending on the room you’re in).

It’s the same sort of deal as those rotating optical illusions. It’s possible to see it both ways, but your brain usually picks one and it’s hard to switch.

Yeah, you can buy humidifiers that work by aerosolizing water, and they’re very energy efficient, but the problem is any bacteria that grows in it will just get spread all over your house if you don’t clean it frequently.

The ones that operate by boiling water are definitely a lot better for health reasons, but it’s a trade-off.

I personally don’t appreciate jokes about violence either, but whatever. I’m not policing the Internet.

I know you’re making a joke, but this doesn’t really feel like the place to do it given the subject being discussed.

I think what we actually need is someone to take a picture of their screen with a microscope while the image is zoomed out.

Based on some comments I’ve seen, it seems likely this is just an artifact of how the red/green/blue pixel layouts work when drawing the edges of white things.

Edit: I don’t have something to check the actual display pixels, but I realized I could just rotate the image and see if the colors change, which they don’t. So this definitely seems like more of a white balance effect, similar to that old Gold/Blue Dress meme.

Based on a world population of 8 billion, that would be roughly 0.000000000000008% of a person. It’s also not even representable as a 64 bit float so I had to do this math in my head (Calculator just says 0)

Dang, I kind of want one of those glass dragons. That sounds awesome

That’s kinda fucked up. Almost sounds like laws targeting homeless people living out of their cars. And for anyone else, why shouldn’t I be able to just tour around and look at sights without necessarily stopping anywhere? That’s basically what I do every weekend for fun.

Interesting that strtol in C does that. I’ve always explicitly passed in base 10 or 16, but I didn’t know it would auto-detect if you passed 0. TIL.

Yep. Ubiquiti sells wifi 7 APs and the latest phones support it as of some time last year I think. The big new feature is 6GHz and the ability to automatically hop between frequencies (You can use 6, 5 and 2.4GHz all at once). Latency has been great, and I easily get 1Gbps+ in the same room as my wifi.

Well, you’re right. I wasn’t getting it, but I’ve also never seen any piece of software that would treat a single leading zero as octal. That’s just a recipe for disaster, and it should use 0o116 to be unambiguous

(I am a software engineer, but was assuming you meant it was hardcoded to parse as octal, not some weird auto-detect)

Well shit, my zip code starts with a 9.

A quadratic function is just one possible polynomial. They’re also not really related to big-O complexity, where you mostly just care about what the highest exponent is: O(n^2) vs O(n^3).

For most short programs it’s fairly easy to determine the complexity. Just count how many nested loops you have. If there’s no loops, it’s probably O(1) unless you’re calling other functions that hide the complexity.

If there’s one loop that runs N times, it’s O(n), and if you have a nested loop, it’s likely O(n^2).

You throw out any constant-time portion, so your function’s actual runtime might be the polynomial: 5n^3 + 2n^2 + 6n + 20. But the big-O notation would simply be O(n^3) in that case.

I’m simplifying a little, but that’s the overview. I think a lot of people just memorize that certain algorithms have a certain complexity, like binary search being O(log n) for example.

Wrong kind of link 😜

It’s sad that the best most startups can hope for is to be bought by a giant corporation. Not a lot of people are interested in just having a successful long-term business.

Brazil’s approach for fostering innovation and technology is to tax all outside tech at 100%, even though no local industry for the products even exists. I don’t have high expectations for them investing in scientific publishing.