eesmith

381 ms·

1. 4801.▲
   by eesmith 5y ago

   I pointed out you likely need to look to du Châtelet to discover the derivation of what Coriolis refers to as the "old usage". As to the "1/2 is a mistake", one question in physics is, is gravitational mass exactly
2. 4802.▲
   by eesmith 5y ago

   mgh = mv² is experimentally disproven in the ballistics lab experiments I mentioned.
3. 4803.▲
   by eesmith 5y ago

   You need Einstein's equation to have a "striking analogy". You used Einstein's equation for v=0; the rest-mass/energy equivalence. If you use Einstein's full equation, there is no "striking analogy."
4. 4804.▲
   by eesmith 5y ago

   Again, Einstein's full equation is E² = (p c)² + (mc²)². You left out the momentum term, which means your equation assumes v=0, in which case K.E. = 0 is trivially valid. The momentum term is also important as massless photons still ha
5. 4805.▲
   by eesmith 5y ago

   Not every value is divided by 2. Only the K.E. term is divided by 2. The P.E. term is not. If you ever find where Young worked out the equivalency to P.E. then you'll find he had m v² = 2 m g h. But I suspect he did not. The underlying
6. 4806.▲
   by eesmith 5y ago

   Frustratingly, it doesn't seem to have predictive text/auto-correct. :(
7. 4807.▲
   by eesmith 5y ago

   I think the Reason piece gives the incorrect context for that quote. After confirming the state's "unique interest in remedying its own discrimination against LGBT", the majority continue: > As compelling as Colorado’s int
8. 4808.▲
   by eesmith 5y ago

   I agree. The issue is because 330 Creative LLC wanted to include the following in marketing materials: > These same religious convictions that motivate me also prevent me from creating websites promoting and celebrating ideas or messages
9. 4809.▲
   by eesmith 5y ago

   This is silly. Energy and momentum are preserved. m g h = 1/2 m v² is tested over and over again in ballistics experiments in intro physics labs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkzbLMQMFck . A wrong factor of 2 would
10. 4810.▲
    by eesmith 5y ago

    I'm quite outside your user base, and can't provide suggestions along those lines. I'm also not in marketing and sales, so it's a bit of blind-leading-the-blind here. The "pay what you want" model is very tough
11. 4811.▲
    by eesmith 5y ago

    Hmm. Still doesn't work in Firefox. But I have FF 84.0.2 because I don't want to loose ftp support. With Safari, there isn't a problem.
12. 4812.▲
    by eesmith 5y ago

    "An unexpected error has occurred." when I try to search nearby or view the map.
13. 4813.▲
    by eesmith 5y ago

    I can agree with "standard in [domain]", as there are many domains know nothing about. What raises my hackles is the lack of any qualifiers, given how rarely it's used in the projects I know about.
14. 4814.▲
    by eesmith 5y ago

    What does "standard" mean to you? From what I can tell, that assertion is common in Agile advocacy. But from my experience as a professional software developer in the 1990s, and from reading stories about software development, wat
15. 4815.▲
    by eesmith 5y ago

    While I rarely need it, I like being able to vendor a package by dropping it into a project subdirectory. If the package uses absolute paths then I would need to tweak all the imports for the new absolute path.
16. 4816.▲
    by eesmith 5y ago

    FWIW, my command-line tools and any support code are all in a subdirectory under my package directory. I used to include a simple stub Python program (~10 lines) as a "script" in my setup.py that would import the right code and ca
17. 4817.▲
    by eesmith 5y ago

    Your characterization is not true. The reality was quite the opposite. Here's the introduction of Steve McConnell's "Rapid Development" from 1994 - well before the Agile Manifesto! - Chapter 1, page 1: > The product m
18. 4818.▲
    by eesmith 5y ago

    Agile both succeeded and failed because it's defined as "not waterfall." Since no one does pure waterfall, everyone does Agile. Even this essay encourages that interpretation: "Everyone in this group had deep experience
19. 4819.▲
    by eesmith 5y ago

    I just ordered a Cat B40 - https://www.catphones.com/en-gb/cat-b40/ . It uses KaiOS. :)
20. 4820.▲
    by eesmith 5y ago

    It's hard to even find a good feature phone these days. At least I'm looking for one now because my Nokia E5-03 died yesterday so now I have to figure out what to get. I want something small, that I can stick in my pocket and not
21. 4821.▲
    by eesmith 5y ago

    No. In fact, nearly 20 years ago PEP 308 ("Conditional Expressions") was made so people wouldn't need to resort to this sort of syntax - https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0308/ . Quoting from
22. 4822.▲
    by eesmith 5y ago

    210 comments in last week's link, at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27858630 .
23. 4823.▲
    by eesmith 5y ago

    A article written in 2016 about left-pad. Err, spoilers !
24. 4824.▲
    by eesmith 5y ago

    That's the "single entry, single exit" guideline. See https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/1187... and places it links to (like https://stackoverflow.com/questions&#x2F
25. 4825.▲
    by eesmith 5y ago

    For those interested in the topic, see also https://weblog.jamisbuck.org/2011/2/7/maze-generation-algori... and https://www.astrolog.org/labyrnth/algrithm.htm .
26. 4826.▲
    by eesmith 5y ago

    Here's the HST's news page on the topic. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2021/operations-underwa... . Starting with the good news: > July 16, 2021 - NASA Successfully Switches to Backup Hard
27. 4827.▲
    by eesmith 5y ago

    In practice, it turns out to be more convenient if the definition excludes 1, rather than put a qualifier in every place which uses the term "prime". For example, it's more convenient to write "every integer greater than
28. 4828.▲
    by eesmith 5y ago

    What about a Pac-Man? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKrn5bHn-d8 - Mathman, from the PBS series "Square One Television". A Pac-Man spoof. In this one Mathman must only eat primes.
29. 4829.▲
    by eesmith 5y ago

    If I were able to count them out loud, in order? 999 nonillion, 999 octillion, 999 septillion, 999 sextillion, 999 quintillion, 999 quadrillion, 999 trillion, 999 million, 999 thousand, 999. That is (after consulting a table), 1 decillion -
30. 4830.▲
    by eesmith 5y ago

    I have no idea how you drew that conclusion. I explicitly stated a company could prohibit proselytizing at work. That includes even if " God told me to do it ". Congrats! Your "medieval voodoo" made my eyes roll. Hinduis