affiliate

@affiliate@lemmy.world

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

affiliate,

i won’t fight you about water but we can fight over something else if you’d like

affiliate,

i wouldn’t be surprised if a big part of it is that the higher ups don’t know much about what good writing actually is, or they’re too focused on ratings and they don’t dare deviate from “what works”. it also wouldn’t surprise me if writers weren’t allowed to make “major” changes to scripts after seeing how the writing looks after scenes have been recorded, because it might be “too expensive to change”.

affiliate,

i like to make sequels every year or so. i’m currently on “liked songs 4”. it gives me the chaos of a liked songs playlist, but with the comfort that only recently liked songs will play. (i will never unlike a song)

affiliate,

what would happen if you turned it sideways

After 23 years, developer reveals he snuck a cheat code past Sony that turns a cult-classic horror game into a godsend for retro enthusiasts (www.gamesradar.com)

Article about a recent revelation by the Youtube Channel Modern Vintage Gaming: The game “Alien Resurrection” by Argonaut contains a code which allows to run burned CD copies of Playstation 1 games.

affiliate,

i don’t really know, but an educated guess is that it has to do with how old the console is, and how micro optimized/hacky things had to be at the time. for example, morrowind would reboot your xbox during loading screens. there was probably quite a lot more control given to developers in the olden days, whereas now things are more sandboxed. but i would be happy to be corrected on anything i’ve said here.

affiliate,

i could never work in hardware. i’d feel too bad for all the very small people i’d be shoving in the computers

affiliate,

what’s the typical 2020s style? i’m out of the loop

affiliate,

what i’m gathering from this thread is that i should learn cobol

affiliate,

what would happen if you never told them to stop? would they eventually stop of their own accord or keep coming back with new blocks of cheese?

affiliate,

i’m sure they’ll think of something new on the 28th one

affiliate,

god forbid you ever want to run any 32 bit programs. you can’t even play the orange box games anymore

affiliate,

can someone tell me where in the picture i’m supposed to be looking

affiliate,

i just might be

affiliate,

this is exactly why i like math. i get to play pretend in my own little world

affiliate,

I know how to fix it, but it’s a pain.

this is a perfect description of the microsoft office experience

affiliate,

couches are but another victim to the interior decorator’s aversion to uncluttered flat surfaces

affiliate,

my couch is barren and made of rock, any comfort must come from within

affiliate,

for anyone curious, here’s a “constructive” explanation of why a^0^ = 1. i’ll also include a “constructive” explanation of why rational exponents are defined the way they are.

anyways, the equality a^0^ = 1 is a consequence of the relation

a^m+1^ = a^m^ • a.

to make things a bit simpler, let’s say a=2. then we want to make sense of the formula

2^m+1^ = 2^m^ • 2

this makes a bit more sense when written out in words: it’s saying that if we multiply 2 by itself m+1 times, that’s the same as first multiplying 2 by itself m times, then multiplying that by 2. for example: 2^3^ = 2^2^ • 2, since these are just two different ways of writing 2 • 2 • 2.

setting 2^0^ is then what we have to do for the formula to make sense when m = 0. this is because the formula becomes

2^0+1^ = 2^0^ • 2^1^.

because 2^0+1^ = 2 and 2^1^ = 2, we can divide both sides by 2 and get 1 = 2^0^.

fractional exponents are admittedly more complicated, but here’s a (more handwavey) explanation of them. they’re basically a result of the formula

(a^m^)^n^ = a^m•n^

which is true when m and n are whole numbers. it’s a bit more difficult to give a proper explanation as to why the above formula is true, but maybe an example would be more helpful anyways. if m=2 and n=3, it’s basically saying

(a^2^)^3^ = (aa)^3^ = (aa) • (aa) • (aa) = a^2•3^.

it’s worth noting that the general case (when m and n are any whole numbers) can be treated in the same way, it’s just that the notation becomes clunkier and less transparent.

anyways, we want to define fractional exponents so that the formula

(a^r^)^s^ = a^r^ • a^s^

is true when r and s are fractional numbers. we can start out by defining the “simple” fractional exponents of the form a^1/n^, where n is a whole number. since n/n = 1, we’re then forced to define a^1/n^ so that

a = a^1/n•n^ = (a^1/n^)^n^.

what does this mean? let’s consider n = 2. then we have to define a^1/2^ so that (a^1/2^)^2^ = a. this means that a^1/2^ is the square root of a. similarly, this means that a^1/n^ is the n-th root of a.

how do we use this to define arbitrary fractional exponents? we again do it with the formula in mind! we can then just define

a^m/n^ = (a^1/n^)^m^.

the expression a^1/n^ makes sense because we’ve already defined it, and the expression (a^1/n^)^m^ makes sense because we’ve already defined what it means to take exponents by whole numbers. in words, this means that a^m/n^ is the n-th square root of a, multiplied by itself m times.

i think this kind of explanation can be helpful because they show why exponents are defined in certain ways: we’re really just defining fractional exponents so that they behave the same way as whole number exponents. this makes it easier to remember the definitions, and it also makes it easier to work with them since you can in practice treat them in the “same way” you treat whole number exponents.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • localhost
  • All magazines
  • Loading…
    Loading the web debug toolbar…
    Attempt #