3 ms·
No, you'd written this: > They're not part of the metric system, simply based on it. The 1:sqrt(2) ratio used is extremely convenient as it scales up and down
by philh 12y ago
No, you'd written this:
> They're not part of the metric system, simply based on it. The 1:sqrt(2) ratio used is extremely convenient as it scales up and down nicely
TM thought those two sentences were related. Ve thought you were saying that the factor of sqrt(2) was what made it metric. Ve was correcting something that you hadn't actually said, but which would have been wrong if you had said it.
And then your reply to ver made the same mistake, and you do not get to feel superior about this.
("You appear to not understand" isn't literally calling someone dumb, but that's pretty much what it boils down to.)
I'm not going to make another of the same mistakes you did: I'm tapping out here.
- talideon 12y agoI get your point, and I don't feel superior about it. My emphasis didn't appear to get through. This is what I'd meant to emphasise. > You just have to apply the proper factor (which is a decimal, but a terminating one --- unlike the sqrt(2) business). That's where the "You appear to not understand" comment came from, because they didn't understand it. I literally have no idea how I could've phrased that better. I'm also tapping out: I'm in work, and didn't expect to spend so much time at this.