6÷2(1+2)
dgmib @ dgmib @lemmy.world Posts 0Comments 233Joined 2 yr. ago
dgmib @ dgmib @lemmy.world
Posts
0
Comments
233
Joined
2 yr. ago
Will you accept wolfram alpha as credible source?
https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Solidus.html
Special care is needed when interpreting the meaning of a solidus in in-line math because of the notational ambiguity in expressions such as a/bc. Whereas in many textbooks, "a/bc" is intended to denote a/(bc), taken literally or evaluated in a symbolic mathematics languages such as the Wolfram Language, it means (a/b)×c. For clarity, parentheses should therefore always be used when delineating compound denominators.
What is your source for the priority of the / operator?
i.e. why do you say 6 / 2 * 3 is unambiguous?
Every source I’ve seen states that multiplication and division are equal priority operations. And one should clarify, either with a fraction bar (preferably) or parentheses if the order would make a difference.
You state that the ambiguity comes from the implicit multiplication and not the use of the obelus.
I.e. That 6 ÷ 2 x 3 is not ambiguous
What is your source for your statement that there is an accepted convention for the priority of the iinline obelus or solidus symbol?
As far as I’m aware, every style guide states that a fraction bar (preferably) or parentheses should be used to resolve the ambiguity when there are additional operators to the right of a solidus, and that an obelus should never be used.
Which therefore would make it the division expressed with an obelus that creates the ambiguity, and not the implicit multiplication.
(Rest of the post is great)
It’s helpful to remember too that the problem isn’t using petroleum, the problem is burning it.
As long as it’s properly disposed of using petroleum based lubricant doesn’t cause climate change.
I’m genuinely not sure which side you think is which.
‘cause if there’s one demographic that couldn’t possibly have the aptitude, resourcefulness or motivation needed to defeat a scheme like this it’s horny teenagers.
The exhaust from a typical ICE wouldn’t have enough pressure to inflate a tire, so you’d need a compressor. Of course if you had a compressor you’d just use clean air.
If for some reason you used a compressor to compress exhaust gases to fill a tire, it would mostly be the same as filling with air at first.
Exhaust gas is mostly a mix of carbon dioxide and and water vapour, with small amounts of oil residue, and other organic compounds. The water vapour will condense as it cools likely leaving some liquid water in the tire, which won’t cause immediate issues but will cause vibrations which will accelerate wear not just on the tire but possibly the entire suspension.
The organic compounds will cause the rubber to break down over time and the tire will wear out sooner.
Even if it built with the same disregard as the Chernobyl plant, and there’s “an occasional meltdown”… it’s still actually better than building coal power plant in terms of lives lost per TWh of power generated.
What makes you think OP believes the earth is flat?
Or something like it controls the lights in the elevator cab (but not the elevator itself).
Total monthly posts exploded after Spez enshitified Reddit, and is still growing steadily month over month.
That suggests that the current decline in monthly active users is primarily because lurkers who only came to lemmy after initially hearing about it on Reddit, went back to lurking Reddit.
The number of users that are contributors is still growing, and that’s what’s important.
It’s ridiculously unusual for a board to actually fire a CEO. Usually if the board thinks a new CEO is needed, even if the CEO doesn’t agree with the decision, there’s a transition plan announced the CEO “stepping down”, or “steps aside”, of the “next phase of growth” or whatever. It has a massive positive spin on it and the departing CEO is paid a ridiculous severance to go along with the plan publicly.
It’s very negative press to have to outright fire a CEO. Especially in a case like this when the CEO saw the company through the kind of growth that every startup has wet dreams about.
Something huge happened, and the world is speculating rampantly about what that was.
I am aware that McDonald’s did have 700 claims nationwide from burns from coffee in the 10 years between 1984 and 1994.
But I can’t find anywhere where they were ordered by courts to lower the temperature. Can you provided a link to one of these cases where they were ordered to lower the temperature and they disregard that?
If you believe there are details about the case that I don’t understand, feel free to enlighten me.
You might want to google that “fact”
There’s no legal maximum temperature in the US.
Coffee and tea are routinely served at temperatures that can cause severe burns in seconds. Starbucks, today, normally serves their steeped teas at around 200°F. That 10°F hotter than the 180-190°F that was McDonald’s policy at the time of the Stella Liebeck case.
To prevent scalding and burns, the WHO recommends water be no hotter than 60°C (140°F). Most customers would complain if coffee and tea was mandated to be served at a ‘safe’ temperature.
This was not a freak accident
I curious what makes you say that?
Yes, McDonald’s did have 700 reports of people receiving burns from their coffee…
The part most people don’t pay attention to is that was nationwide over a 10 year period.
That’s about 1 burn a week, yes some were serious 3rd degree burns, but most were not.
When they were serving literally 10s of millions of cups of coffee a week they we’re getting about 1 report a week.
1 in 10 million meets my definition of a freak accident. There could have been 100x that many reports of coffee burn injuries and I would still call it a freak accident.
I’m not supporting McDonald’s in this case. And I’m definitely not blaming Stella. Her wounds were very very severe.
Part of the reason they were so severe is because the highly absorbent sweatpants she was wearing kept the coffee trapped against her skin for at least 30 seconds. Should we blame the manufacturer of the pants too? I don’t think anyone studied it. But I’m willing to bet that at least 1 in 10 million pairs of sweatpants have contributed to severe burn scalding injuries.
She burned herself by pulling the cup over when she was pulling on a tab to open the lid of the cup, (a cup which BTW did actually have a warning about the coffee being hot printed on it). Should whoever designed the lid be blamed? Cup design has been at the centre of other burn lawsuits.
A younger more able person probably would have been able to remove their pants quickly but Stella was 79 at the time. She wasn’t driving, the car was parked. Most people could have gotten out of the car and gotten their pants off quick, but not in Stella’s case she wasn’t capable of mitigating her injuries. Should we argue that old or mobility limited individuals should only be allowed to drink luke warm beverages?
McDonald’s policy at the time was to hold coffee at 180-190°F. We don’t know the temperature of her cup specifically, but let’s assume it’s in that area. If that’s so dangerous, as her lawyer argued, why isn’t that illegal today? Starbucks holds coffee at that temperature today, they normally serve it a bit cooler, at about 170°F, but you can ask for it extra hot and they’ll serve it at that temperature. Starbucks also serves their tea at 200+°F today. If this wasn’t a freak accident and companies should know better, why is it common practice for franchises today to still serve coffee and tea at these hot temperatures?
The fact is, injuries from overly hot beverages are rare, and severe injuries like the kind Stella had are even more rare. You can’t prevent those sorts of 1 in a million+ accidents. Any precautions you might take to prevent them, tend to create a new extremely unlikely risks of some other injury. Sometimes bad things happen, it doesn’t need to be someone’s fault. If we focus less on who’s fault it is and ensure care for those who suffer from them, regardless of circumstances. You can look at what will actually make a meaningful impact.
Her whole story became national news because Stella needed to sue someone to pay her medical bills. If she didn’t need to do that, no one would even know her name.
If you want to make the argument that McDonald’s should have offered to cover her 20k$ medical bills from the first meeting,instead of making the tiny settlement offer they did make go right ahead. I’m not defending McDonald’s handling of the case.
I’m only arguing that not everything needs to be someone’s fault. This perpetual need to always blame someone when something bad happens makes it more difficult to look at prevention.
You Americans get so obsessed with picking sides, and finding someone to blame. You miss the point.
In every other first world country, this wouldn’t have been a court case, or even news.
When freak accidents happen we don’t look for someone to blame, we treat any victim’s wounds free of charge.
We have public health departments that study accident trends and make precautionary policies to prevent them from happening again.
Stella wouldn’t have had medical bills to sue over.
I would create the evidence party.
It has the stated objective of maximizing quality of life for all Canadians.
It doesn’t care what people think is the best way to do that, it looks at research to determine what is the actual best way to do that and commission’s research to determine the most effective policies when existing evidence doesn’t exist.
It flip-flops on any issue when new research supports a different policy.
We don’t know what Owen’s relationship with Shmi was. Maybe he left home before Cliegg remarried, and was only there when we see him in episode 2 because he came when his dad contacted him in a panic after discovering Tuscan raiders had taken step-mom captive.
My apologies, I wasn’t trying to spar with you friend, just trying to understand why a/bc wouldn’t also be considered ambiguous, particularly since an author could have written ac/b and removed any doubt.
In your blog post you also quoted ISO
You seemed to speak rather definitively that it’s only ambiguous when combined with implicit multiplication.
I agree that almost all calculators and programming languages will interpret consecutive explicit multiplications and divisions with left-to-right precedence.
But as far as I’m aware no such LTR rule has global agreement in mathematics, I was curious if you found something in your research that says otherwise.