5 ms·

that sounds a lot harder than multiplying by 1.6

formula1 10y ago
Im not sure which I appreciate more. An overengineered solution that probably cane about by some eureka type observation. Or the cold calm criticism that Ive learned to appreciate by making too many over engineered solutions
- jsmthrowaway 10y ago
  I value that criticism a lot, particularly when it follows fun thoughts like "why don't we write our own consensus? Raft isn't too bad, right?" In the words of Wally[0], the urge eventually goes away. [0]: http://dilbert.com/strip/1995-01-28 http://dilbert.com/strip/1995-01-28
conistonwater 10y ago
It's a perfectly well-defined number system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeckendorf%27s_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeckendorf%27s_theorem
percept 10y ago
You're both upvoted. I'm going to try the Fibonacci version for a while. (Though perhaps as is suggested with languages, it's better to start applying the new system directly, instead of performing a conversion step first.)
- tdy721 10y ago
  Yes! What is a meter? One Yard! 1km = 10 football fields (no end-zones) I find that meters are better for thinking about walking measures, why does our system even have a yard? Think in units, metric is good. I learned this in American Public School. I was very lucky.
adiabatty 10y ago
Memorizing a sequence of ten numbers (or so) sounds way easier than multiplying by 1.6 (or .62) without whipping out a calculator.
- lostlogin 10y ago
  It's not that hard. And if it is, add 50% and a fudge factor.
- tzs 10y ago
  If you think of 1.6 as 1 + 1/2 + 1/10, then multiplying by it is pretty easy. For example, 34 x 1.6 = 34 + 17 + 3.4 = 54.4. The exact conversion is 1.609344, so to two places it is 1.61. That's only slightly harder than 1.6. Think of it is 1 + 1/2 + 1/10 + 1/100. So for my prior example, 34 x 1.61 = 34 + 17 + 3.4 + 0.34 = 54.74. The operations needs, taking 1/2, 1/10, and 1/100 of the original value are generally easy in your head. The hardest thing is just keeping track of the running sum as you do that. If you want to go one step farther, you could add a -1/1000 term to bring it to 1.609 but that is probably overkill in most circumstances. Even 1.61 is probably overkill.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
Pica_soO 10y ago
multiplying with 1.6180339887.. you ment?
rangibaby 10y ago
I multiply by 1.5. Like "metric pounds" (500g) it's close enough.
- thaumasiotes 10y ago
  In china, they use a unit (the 斤 jin) that is equal to 500g. (Now. Historically it would have been something close.) I got a shocked reaction "you look much smaller!" from someone when I just reported my weight in pounds as weight in 斤. I guess the lesson is it's not "close enough" when people are already sensitive to a particular scale.
  - tdy721 10y ago
    I think you are correct, but I think humans are not as sensitive to distance measurements. If you sprint, and have a 100 yard and 100 meter dash time... Well certainly! If you want to say we just walked 100m to the car, not so much.
  - rangibaby 10y ago
    Yes, close enough* *except for when it's not, of course :-) Loaves of bread in Japan are still sold using 斤 (kin). A standard loaf is one "bread kin" which is defined as 340g or more.

Im not sure which I appreciate more. An overengineered solution that probably cane about by some eureka type observation. Or the cold calm criticism that Ive learned to appreciate by making too many over engineered solutions

jsmthrowaway 10y ago
I value that criticism a lot, particularly when it follows fun thoughts like "why don't we write our own consensus? Raft isn't too bad, right?" In the words of Wally[0], the urge eventually goes away. [0]: http://dilbert.com/strip/1995-01-28 http://dilbert.com/strip/1995-01-28

conistonwater 10y ago

It's a perfectly well-defined number system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeckendorf%27s_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeckendorf%27s_theorem

percept 10y ago

You're both upvoted. I'm going to try the Fibonacci version for a while. (Though perhaps as is suggested with languages, it's better to start applying the new system directly, instead of performing a conversion step first.)

tdy721 10y ago
Yes! What is a meter? One Yard! 1km = 10 football fields (no end-zones) I find that meters are better for thinking about walking measures, why does our system even have a yard? Think in units, metric is good. I learned this in American Public School. I was very lucky.

adiabatty 10y ago

Memorizing a sequence of ten numbers (or so) sounds way easier than multiplying by 1.6 (or .62) without whipping out a calculator.

lostlogin 10y ago
It's not that hard. And if it is, add 50% and a fudge factor.
tzs 10y ago
If you think of 1.6 as 1 + 1/2 + 1/10, then multiplying by it is pretty easy. For example, 34 x 1.6 = 34 + 17 + 3.4 = 54.4. The exact conversion is 1.609344, so to two places it is 1.61. That's only slightly harder than 1.6. Think of it is 1 + 1/2 + 1/10 + 1/100. So for my prior example, 34 x 1.61 = 34 + 17 + 3.4 + 0.34 = 54.74. The operations needs, taking 1/2, 1/10, and 1/100 of the original value are generally easy in your head. The hardest thing is just keeping track of the running sum as you do that. If you want to go one step farther, you could add a -1/1000 term to bring it to 1.609 but that is probably overkill in most circumstances. Even 1.61 is probably overkill.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

Pica_soO 10y ago

multiplying with 1.6180339887.. you ment?

rangibaby 10y ago

I multiply by 1.5. Like "metric pounds" (500g) it's close enough.

thaumasiotes 10y ago
In china, they use a unit (the 斤 jin) that is equal to 500g. (Now. Historically it would have been something close.) I got a shocked reaction "you look much smaller!" from someone when I just reported my weight in pounds as weight in 斤. I guess the lesson is it's not "close enough" when people are already sensitive to a particular scale.
- tdy721 10y ago
  I think you are correct, but I think humans are not as sensitive to distance measurements. If you sprint, and have a 100 yard and 100 meter dash time... Well certainly! If you want to say we just walked 100m to the car, not so much.
- rangibaby 10y ago
  Yes, close enough* *except for when it's not, of course :-) Loaves of bread in Japan are still sold using 斤 (kin). A standard loaf is one "bread kin" which is defined as 340g or more.