queuebert

Another possibility is that you are actually an AI and don't know it.

Momentum change is literally the same thing as a force. That makes what you said nonsensical. The first thing physics students are taught is that F=ma, which is F=dp/dt.

These are amazing illustrations, but I don't understand the emphasis on pressure differentials. That is not how wings generate lift. Due to attachment they deflect the flow, and the momentum change generates an upward force [1]. The practical point of understanding the flow over the wing is to keep that flow attached so that you can deflect it or reattach it if you get out of sorts.

1. https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/VirtualAero/BottleRocket/a...

What is obviously false about it? You can't just assert things as true. That's why the Democrats keep losing.

(See what I did there?)

All things being equal, SF has some of the most desirable weather on the planet, so it will always have an high cost of living due to excess demand.

You seem to be intuiting some kind of chi squared minimization. It is true that fewer free parameters constrain models, but there is nothing in nature that prefers simplicity. That is probably the most annoying thing to us physicists. Even thermodynamics is always shoving us toward disorder. Just look at plasma physics some time for deterministically intractable problems stemming from four little equations (one if you like tensors).

I think it's better to think of most real world models as being low dimensional-ish, where there is a decaying power law of eigenvalues, and most are quite small, though not zero. You can get quite far by looking at the largest modes and ignoring small ones, but you're not exact, so you're not seeing The Truth, or whatever. Forcing your self to use fewer parameters is a way of denoising, however, that is quite effective.

Most commercial services near me use trucks with or without a trailer. Painters tend to use vans, and some electricians. Everyone else has a truck with a logo on it. You can't tow well with a van, so it has to be a company that never tows.

Granted probably most people on here are CA or SV adjacent, which has a fairly idiosyncratic relationship with its service industries and stricter emissions regs.

I get your point, but those tow numbers are notoriously optimistic. Most people I bet would not be comfortable towing 4000 lbs with a Maverick, and it would struggle on grades or in heat. You can even feel that kind of weight with a full-size truck. Above 5000 lbs in most places you need independent trailer brakes.

The real issue that limits the Maverick for a wider audience is the rear is too small to comfortably fit kids, especially in car seats. Adding 4 in of leg room to the rear and making the whole truck 4 in longer would've made in a great homeowner family option without sacrificing much agility.

You're out of touch with the working class. Some people practically live in these trucks. A little comfort goes a long way toward making their day bearable. Leather is easy to clean, power adjustment makes the seat more comfortable. Auto wipers, climate, etc., help them focus on the calls they're taking. And so on. Fleets of these are bought for commercial purposes as well. Companies wouldn't spend that kind of money without a reason.

There's a reason these "luxobarges" are the best selling vehicle in the U.S., and the answer is not virtue signaling.

Now that you edited your post to correct your spelling, people probably have no idea what I'm talking about.

Laundry detergent is usually priced as cents per load by savvy shoppers. That would factor out smaller doses.

Credit card companies have all of this data. They could track classes of spending and regress out rising incomes, age, etc.

"Back in my day, we had a cardboard box and a stick and didn't complain ..."

There is no a priori reason why a bunch of meatbags would have the ability to test all laws of physics of this universe. I think we may have gotten lucky for a while there. String theory is so far out there that a new methodology has been developed, namely using beauty or symmetry or Occam's Razor to choose between competing theories. None of these have the pedigree of empiricism, but they may also not be wrong. I hope some aesthetic could be applied to the laws of the universe, but that is also not at all guaranteed.

Lumpy Quantum Gravy is real. I've seen it at Thanksgiving.

What an abysmally cynical take. More good stuff is good. Be happy about it.

Cargo Cult Steve Jobs is your answer.

Malcolm Longair's books are really what most people who want to read the Feynman lectures should read.

I'm with you. As a physicist, I never found his lectures easy to learn from. They do have interesting explanations, though.

This should be required reading to make an account here.

He's not perfect, but he's really good at explaining science and conveying a sense of awe.

Adobe's contempt for users strikes again.

Why 1320 and not larger?

The sheer amount of compute spent on advertising on this planet boggles my mind.

Missing the "We have too many file formats for X, so I made another". Could also prepopulate the comments with the ubiquitous xkcd reference.

Let's be honest. It's been mostly downhill since AOL.

> Biggest drawback though is that it's over-optimized for matrix math ...

I think this is what inspired the creation of Julia -- they wanted a Matlab clone where for loops were fast because some problems don't fit the matrix mindset.

That's why I mentioned the assumption about the velocity distribution. Sure, the velocities aren't Maxwell-Boltzmann, but that doesn't matter too much for getting a sense of the scale of the issue. The way an astrophysicist thinks (I am one) is that if we make generous assumptions and it turns out to not be a problem, then it definitely isn't a problem. Here they have determined it might be a problem, so further study is warranted. It's also a scientist strategy to publish something slightly wrong to encourage more citations.

Genuine question: What else would it do? The mouse trail is a history of coordinates, so that should be linear, right?

At this point, is there any downside to switching to GitLab?