2,470 karma · joined November 26, 2015
Assuming you mean "late 2018" by "about 5 years ago" (because that's where the graph has a 1.5:1 ratio), that $1200/$800 diamond was probably about 0.2 carat (obviously depends on the other Cs), and would likely be around $1200/$300 today.
Is your claim that LVT increases wealth disparity? Would it be accurate to assert the flip side of that, that laws like Prop 13 in CA help with wealth disparity? Because, uh, that doesn't seem to be how it's worked out, in practice.
This is simply inaccurate. You can spend months and hundreds of millions of dollars running scanning electron microscopes over all of your parts - no one does this, because it's not "worth the squeeze". The question is where to draw the line, and I have no idea what your opinion is there.
The caption on the graph (and the paragraph before the graph) directly addresses this: "This graph shows how any value between 1 and 10 is within ±10% of an E12 series value, and its difference from the ideal value in a geometric sequence."
Given that the article is talking about operations on 32 bit integers and IEEE-754 32-bit floats, I personally think it's fine to leave out "discrete" in the description.
> The exact steps to go from the first form to this one are numerous to say the least, but I've included it in full for completeness.
The algebra included after that line has many unnecessary steps, as well as multiple cancelling sign errors. Most notably the second line to the third line does not distribute the negative sign correctly. Picking up after the second line, I would simply have:
y_n+1 = y_n + (1 - x * y_n^2) / y_n^2 * (y_n^3 / 2)
y_n+1 = y_n + (1 - x * y_n^2) * (y_n / 2)
y_n+1 = y_n + y_n / 2 - x * y_n^3/2
y_n+1 = 3/2 * y_n - x * y_n^3/2
y_n+1 = y_n (3/2 * y_n - x * y_n^2 / 2)
y_n+1 = y_n (1.5 * y_n - 0.5 * x * y_n * y_n)
This is fewer than 1/3 of the included steps (between the second line and the end), and has the advantage of being correct during the intermediate steps. I don't think any of my steps are anything other than self-evident to someone who understands algebra, but I'd be happy to entertain competing perspectives.
[1] https://www.duckworthco.com/products/mens-vapor-pocket-tee
> I could do that, but I have not done that. Why not? I could say I've been busy, a stock answer that is also true, but I think the real reason goes deeper. The truth is that I avoid natural fabrics because I think they won't look good on me.
> Natural fibers are mostly non-stretchy. I'm not super curvy, but I am moderately curvy. My experience with natural fabric clothing is that it either hangs like a giant pillowcase over my body or it bunches and binds in the ugliest way around my breasts, hips, and stomach.
Is this really that surprising, considering that only 2.6%[1] of Asian American women smoke? If 0% of Asian American women smoked, then 100% of the lung cancer cases would come from non-smokers. As it is, the group with the lowest percentage of smokers should have the highest percentage of lung cancer cases in non-smokers.
The article gives no absolute rates to compare, and I can't easily find the article they quote for the rising rates of lung cancer in Asian American women. Given the poor interpretation of the subheading, I wouldn't be surprised if it was entirely explained by aging, or was a reversion to the mean from a very low baseline.
[1] From another comment on this article: https://www.lung.org/quit-smoking/smoking-facts/impact-of-to...
Unintentionally funny comment when positioned next to its sibling about this exact thing happening to FB in a targeted way back in '09
Absolutely no option to build more houses under any circumstances, of course. Just a law of nature that there's no adaptability. Boneheaded.
If you assume the total housing stock is constant, then it makes sense to want to fight displacement by lowering demand
The paper also references that "batteries should reach a specific energy of 550 Wh/kg in order to ensure a driving range of 500 km." Someone should tell Lucid that the Air doesn't count. It has a range between 650 km and 825 km, depending on battery options.
I'm not an expert, but it's worth considering that you can't ramp the production of armor in the same way you can ramp conscription. So to have enough armor, you'd need to be buying armor for nobody in times of peace, which is a tough decision, especially if you're living in an era where firearms are improving rapidly.