Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)SB
Posts
49
Comments
433
Joined
4 yr. ago

  • I agree that feeling manipulated is frustrating and sad. At the same time now I'm scared you wouldn't like texting with me… I take my time sometimes to write something out, and then I think about what I'd like to say and realize what I wrote doesn't reflect that, so I type it out again. I want to be clear and use the right words, you know?

  • To give an extreme example:

    "I solemnly swear that I am up to no good." vs. "053250411391271"

    But to be fair, I never end up with nice sentences. It's more like "Thank you, rainbow. Clock firework" and I imagine myself thanking a rainbow and telling it to "clock firework", whatever that means…

    As to how long, I think it could've been a couple of months doing a dozen or so conversions. In total it's a very small investment of time, assuming you space it out and don't cram. It really helps to use the Wikipedia mnemonics (like how 4 is kinda like a mirrored R).

  • I think the way to formally prove this is to find the difference between the Fibonacci approximation and the usual conversion, and then to find whether that series is convergent or not. Someone who has taken the appropriate pre-calculus or calculus course could actually carry it out :P

    However, I got curious about graphing it for distances "small enough" like from Earth to the sun (150 million km). Turns out, there's always an error, but the error doesn't seem to be growing. In other words, except for the first few terms, the Fibonacci approximation works!

    This graph grabs each "Fibonacci mile" and converts it to kilometers either with the usual conversion or the Fibonacci-approximation conversion. I also plotted a straight line to see if the points deviated.

    Edit: Here's another graph

    So it turns out:

    • Fibonacci-approximated kilometers are always higher than the usual-conversion kilometers
    • At most, the difference between both is 25%. That happens early on in the terms.
    • After that, the percentage difference oscillates around a value and comes closer to it.
    • When talking about more than 100 miles, the percentage change approximates 0.54.

    TL;DR:

    • Yes, the Fibonacci trick is true forever as you go higher in the sequence if you're willing to accept a 0.54% error.
  • My post tried to convey that most people do this:

    [Original post by OP about COVID-19] Comments:

    • User A: "COVID-19's symptoms can vary from person to person, and the vast majority of people do not present life-threatening symptoms. This can make it easy to conclude that COVID-19 cannot possibly kill someone [edit: here's a source that shows that many people actually believe COVID-19 cannot possibly kill someone: statistics.net]. This is an unfortunate situation, because trusting the science can lead people to use appropriate masks and reduce its spread. [edit: added the word "appropriate" thanks to User C]
      • User B: "Really? I don't know anyone who believes COVID-19 cannot possibly kill someone"
        • User A: "I responded to you by adding a source to my original comment through an edit"
      • User C: "My niece used a cloth mask in the Prague metro and still got COVID-19. I suppose the type of mask matters."
        • "You're right! I'll edit my original comment to reflect that."
      • User D: "I'm sure you won't reply to this comment if I say that I don't accept science."

    and they don't generally do this:

    [Original post by OP about COVID-19] Comments:

    • User A: "COVID-19's symptoms can vary from person to person."
    • User A: "Many people think COVID-19 cannot possibly kill someone."
      • User A: "My source for this is statistics.net"
      • User B: "Really? I don't know anyone who believes COVID-19 cannot possibly kill someone"
        • User A: "I responded to you by adding a source to my original comment through another comment"
    • User A: "Mask usage helps reduce the spread of COVID-19."
      • User C: "My niece used a cloth mask in the Prague metro and still got COVID-19. I suppose the type of mask matters."

    The point is that we usually don't split our points into many comments of the same level. Levels here refer to this:

    • Level 1 of a comment tree
      • Level 2 of a comment tree
      • Level 2 of a comment tree
        • Level 3 of a comment tree
    • Level 1 of a comment tree

    When I say that we take that for granted, I mean that I don't see people splitting up their comments in the same level. Neither do I see people talking about splitting up their comments. In other words, neither in practice nor in discourse do people split up their comments.

    Edit: Rewrite for clarity