MisterFrog @ MisterFrog @lemmy.world

Posts

9

Comments

925

Joined

2 yr. ago

You're right. Literally unplayable

Honestly, good on you so much for sharing. The fact you're not ashamed and willing to share could save someone from the same attack, and as others have pointed out, even the most security minded of us can have lapses in judgement.

I'm really glad you weren't screwed in the end.

Power to you, don't let the food snobs stop you!

Hey American modern pick up truck heads. Notice how normal the bonnet is? Notice how you can SEE enough to not run people over? This is a true utility vehicle. Look how massive this bad boy is without being a death machine 👍

Yikes 😬

Bloody English spelling... There's a reason spelling bees don't exist in some other languages.

We have a competition for spelling because English spelling is so bad at its job.

What fucking year is it in these people's minds? 1600?

Chiming in with barely any knowledge on the topic.

Universities are massive institutions, with serious cash behind them. What the hell is stopping, say, all the public Australian universities just setting up their own journal, running it at cost for all the universities in Australia?

Make it make sense.

I am always neutral on this sort of thing (i.e. I believe in democracy, and despite what people will have you believe, Taiwan is not a monolith of opinion of the one China / reunification / independence question)

But this is fucking hilarious

Well, you must have a great palette haha.

If you randomly give me one of the two: no idea.

Back to back, sure I could tell, else, it's cola.

Imagine how boss a culture would be being able to count up to 31 on a single hand, and 1023 with two hands.

At risk of being stuck-up: What, and Coca-Cola is not too sweet? Cola is sugar water with a bit of flavour.

I would say they only become distinguishable if you actually like cola, and drink I enough to be able to distinguis. Like all things taste, if you aren't exposed to it often, you can't tell the difference.

I'd bet you GF just rarely drank either coke or Pepsi.

I so badly wish this was publishable. It would be SO useful.

We want the legend, rather than the man, it would seem

As a vegan who spends no time associating with other vegans, because it's not a large part of my identity (other than watching cooking videos), these people are idiots who are getting high on being righteous.

So much so they overdosed and became animal abusers.

Quite ironic. Funny, if it weren't causing harm.

I actually think these are fine. If I can quickly recognise each on my homescreen (I don't use labels) then it's fine, and I've never had a problem with any of these.

I like it because each company each has its own set of apps, and they have somewhat unified app icons.

Proton is the same, which similar icons as google but with their own unified branding.

I like it, personally.

(Pressure) * (volume) = (# moles) * (gas constant) * (temperature)

The ideal gas law.

In another thread I admit I didn't explain my position here well enough. I would only not explain this equation given sufficient context (e.g. I've shown all those variables in a table, and my intended audience is people familiar with basic chemistry, which I'd expect would be everyone reading the report for this particular example, since this is high school chemistry, and the topic of all reports I work on is chemical engineering.)

People can read the conclusions if they're not familiar with chemistry, and for the detail, they're not my intended audience anyway.

Generally I still hold the position that you should define variables as much as possible, unless it's overly cumbersome, given your intended audience would clearly understand anyway.

In context this simple equation is obvious even if you change the symbols, as long as there is sufficient context to draw from.

No worries friend, no hard feelings and appreciate the engagement!

Yeah, agree it is a bit wishy washy in terms of gauging how much explanation to include ¯(ツ)_/¯

I suppose (in my opinion) the mindset should be: include as much explanation as possible, without it being cumbersome.

I personally err on the side of over-explanation and have had some senior engineers give me feedback that it's too much. Still learning for myself how much is too much.

Totally agree though, that there are many cases where people leave things out as assumed, when it's not really reasonable to do so.

A side-thought on specificity: one of my biggest pet peeves is when people list pressure with the units of kPa, when they really mean kPag. In industry, you are rarely talking in absolute pressure (other than for pressure differences) and people then get lazy/don't know/assume it's fine to do something like: set point 100 kPa (when they mean 100 kPag). It isn't fine though, because at lower pressures atmosphere counts for a pretty large percentage of the absolute value.

Understand your frustration with how I've communicated my position, sorry about that:

My justification for the examples I've given is there still needs to be other context, is based on complexity of the equation, and the intended audience of that equation.

An example of me not explaining a very simple equation would be perhaps a table of various cases:

| --- | mass flow (kg/hr) | density (kg/m³) | Volumetric flow (m³/hr), V = m/ρ | | Case 1 | blah blah | blah blah | blah | | Etc. | ... | ... | ... |

Realising now that markdown tables don't seem to work 😅, hopefully this is still clear.

It may be a touch better to put variable symbols in the other columns, but:

1. You still have the final answer (the purpose of my report, I'm not writing a thesis here)
2. It should be plainly obvious by the units, and the fact those are the previous two variables, to someone who has the ability to understand (and is the intended audience of that little equation)

As a recent example for this, in a data sheet I recently prepared, I literally just put a * in the references column and said "*calculated from other data sheet values" for the volumetric flow rate, because the intended audience would know how to do that, and the purpose was for me to communicate how that value was determined.

Me putting in the V = m/ρ in the hypothetical example I gave above is a just a little mind jog for the reader.

Where more complicated equations are used, of course these are properly referenced, usually even with the standard or book it's come from.

I'll redefine my position to: Clearly define all variables, unless it's abundantly obvious to your intended audience from context.

My intended audience of the conclusions or final values are the layman. My intended audience of everything else is someone with a very basic chemical engineering understanding.

Your last point is a strawman:

I find it a bit contradicting to the very point you made about defining variables. If anything, one might be some home-grown genius that has real business getting into details but only ever used Chinese characters as variables

Because I'm writing in English, for an English speaking audience, and there is no such thing as a home-grown genius getting into my area because it's a legal requirement that they have an honours degree. Even still, the two assumed knowledge equations I mentioned, which I would only not reference with sufficient context, would STILL be recognisable with totally random symbols.

| mass flow (kg/hr) | density (kg/m³) | Volumetric flow (m³/hr), 容 = 质/密 | Yup, a bit odd in an English context, but with the units information (always mandatory, of course) completely understandable.