2 ms·
Sure thing my dude. You also cannot express fuel consumption in miles per gallon. You must express it in square millimeters. https://what-if.xkcd.com/11/ https:
by csours 4y ago
Sure thing my dude. You also cannot express fuel consumption in miles per gallon. You must express it in square millimeters. https://what-if.xkcd.com/11/ https://what-if.xkcd.com/11/
- zdragnar 4y agoWe may occasionally write gallons per mile with a slash, but it is useful as a ratio, not an equation. It makes no sense to reduce a volume to a surface. On the other hand, knowing if a factory puts out 240 gigawatt hours worth of battery capacity every year, or only over the entire lifetime of the factory, really is an important distinction to make.
- themitigating 4y agoI wish people like you who make these intelligent,factual, and short comments could have a reputation value on HN. This value could give you some automatic upvotes or a more prominent location displayed.
- zdragnar 4y agoMeh, I'm not always right, and often wander int territory of conjecture (though I like to think I try to be clear about which is which). I'd rather keep the freedom to post as I please rather than limit my expression just to chase clout.
- themitigating 4y agoIt's not for you, it's so that factual information is promoted
- csours 4y agoMy apologies. I did not read the first comment clearly enough, and the 2nd comment did not clarify the actual complaint.
- ben_w 4y ago> It makes no sense to reduce a volume to a surface. It kinda does, it is the (average) cross section of the fuel flowing from tank to engine.
- zdragnar 4y agoSure, but to be useful you need flow rate, at which point you're basically back to calculating volume. Gas is purchased in volume, and stored in volume. Why not keep the measurement of use as volume per time or distance?