Most people I know don’t go to bars for an efficient alcoholic experience.
To reinforce what you’re saying, bartenders I know tend to only have stories about one-off degeneracy that happens over the course of one night. But liquor store cashiers have stories about their regulars destroying their own lives over the course of months or years.
Some of us might be drinking more than 6 pints (6 UK pints is about 7.2 US pints). That’s one way.
Another way is paying more than $15 per drink, yes, after including tax and tip in the US. That’s somewhat common in some places, especially if cocktails are involved. Or higher end wine or spirits. Or even certain craft beers.
You’re right that using geometry and ratios is only good for a few digits of π. Some ancient mathematicians used to draw polygons on the inside and the outside of a circle, and then use the circumferences of those polygons as an upper or lower limit on what π was. Archimedes approximated π as being between 223/71 and 22/7, using 96-sided regular polygons.
The real breakthroughs happened when people realized certain infinite series converge onto π, where you add and/or subtract a series of smaller and smaller terms so that the only digits of the sum that changes with each additional term are already way to the right of the decimal point.
The Leibniz formula, proven to converge to π/4, is 1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - 1/7 + 1/9 - 1/11 . . .
So if you have a pen and paper, you can add and subtract each one in sequence, and eventually they get really small to where you’re adding and subtracting numbers so small that it leaves the first few digits untouched. At that point you can be confident that the digits that can’t change anymore are the right digits.
Later breakthroughs in new formulas made much faster convergences, so that you didn’t have to make as many calculations to get a few digits. And computers make these calculations much, much faster. So today the computer methods generally use the Chudnovsky algorithm that spits out digits of 1/π, which can easily be converted to digits of π itself.
Except maybe Electrical engineers.
Yup, I can count just fine to the 10th number in a zero-indexed counting system: black, brown, red, orange, yellow, green, blue, violet, gray, white.
I appreciate the message, but I find this presentation style to be unbearable, like a shitty clickbait version of a TED talk: fast cuts with exaggerated audience reactions, playing hide the ball with the actual information being presented. And then they took what I imagine is a normal studio production designed for normal TV screens and cropped it into vertical video, published on Youtube as a short. Gross.
Plastics are a broad category. But specific plasticizers, like BPA, have been demonstrated to cause specific endocrine issues, up to and including a causal link to certain cancers, miscarriages, and other reproductive/immune issues. And it’s not just correlations being found, as the research is showing the mechanism of action by actually inducing the effects in vitro.
And so when a particular plasticizer has been shown to be harmful, the research goes into other chemically similar plasticizers to see whether they have biological effects, as well. BPS is another plasticizer that is being studied, as it is chemically similar to BPA.
So we haven’t shown that all microplastics are bad. I’m skeptical that these effects would extend to all plastics. But some common compounds that are present in many plastics are a cause for concern, and the difficulty in treating water or waste for microplastics in general means that some of those harmful compounds are present in lots of places where we’d rather not.
We moved from leaded gasoline to unleaded gasoline based on the specific dangers attributable to lead itself. We can do the same for the specific compounds in our plastics shown to be harmful. Maybe the end result is that we have a lot of safer plastics remaining. But your comment seems to suggest that we not even try.
The brushes and loofas also contribute to micro plastic pollution.
That just defines fruit. Vegetable has no formal definition, and in practice is defined basically as “parts of plants we eat that aren’t considered fruits or nuts.”
My body is a machine for turning the flashes of tiny little lights precisely arranged on a slab of glass into little taps of my thumbs on precise positions on that glass slab.
I eat a legume for pretty much every meal:
I personally don’t care for tofu. I’ll eat it when it’s a component of a dish I happen to already be eating, but I rarely seek it out to be the star of the dish I order or make, with only a few exceptions.
But adding legumes/pulses to your meals is an easy way to get more protein, including amino acids (like lysine) that aren’t present in traditional grains like wheat or rice. And they’re generally a good source of certain types of soluble fiber good for gut health. I’m also generally less hungry (and get full faster) when I’m eating plenty of fiber and protein, so legumes help with both of those.
I eat a lot, so I still eat a decent amount of meat overall, but as a percentage of my 3500-calorie diet it’s probably smaller than the average Westerner.
India basically introduced toilets in a single generation.
According to this article, in 1993, 70.3% of the Indian population did not have access to toilets. By 2021, the number dropped to 17.8%. So literally more than half the population of India got access to toilets within 30 years.
This was a particularly bad case of some bagel being cut in half.
Black, brown, then the fucking colors of the rainbow in order, gray, white.
If you need a mnemonic to memorize that, you’re gonna have some trouble actually building out your lookup table in your head of immediately knowing that red=2, yellow=4, etc.
10 digits gets the diameter of the earth to within an inch.
Put another way, 10 digits means that your error will be caused by your imprecise model of the Earth’s shape, rather than imprecision in the value of pi.
What would be the “n” in that Big O notation, though?
If you’re saying that you want accuracy out to n digits, then there are algorithms with specific complexities for calculating those. But that’s still just an approximation, so those aren’t any better than the real-world implementation method of simply looking up that constant rather than calculating it anew.
I dunno, I think he looks good. He has noticeably more muscle than the average guy on the street, and I’d imagine that if he didn’t work out he’d look worse with general flabbiness.
I had a similar build in my late 20’s. At one point, I had just started dating someone new, and I said something self deprecating or playful about my own body, and she outright scoffed at me, and blurted out “what the fuck are you talking about, you’ve got an amazing body” and it was just the little jolt of self esteem boost I didn’t know I was looking for.
Understanding the difference between bodies one would have working out for a year versus not working out that year is important. It’s still a significant difference that people notice, even if there’s another significant difference between the one-year guy and the professional fitness model in the magazines.
Everybody’s punching up.
The diversity in preferences makes “up” impossible to define and order consistently between people. If you take a survey of a population for an ordered ranking, in desire ability as potential spouses, of a particular sample set, you might get wildly different rankings.
And then those same people might rank things differently depending on who they would most want to have a one night stand with.
Even laying out specific physical characteristics and asking about attractiveness will get those isolated features ranked differently. Heterosexual men will disagree on whether it is attractive, unattractive or neutral for a woman to be:
We’re all just looking for compatibility. What that means will vary from person to person, and what is very attractive to one person might be a huge turn off to another.
I’m generally of the view that you want to be with someone whose unique traits are positive to you, and who sees your unique traits as positives, too. That way both can fall within that stable equilibrium of both believing that they’ve married “up.”
If you’re accommodating another group of people you should produce enough to always feed them, too, not just sometimes in surplus years. The whole point is that you’ve gotta plan for a surplus, otherwise you risk starvation in bad years (and it doesn’t make it any better, morally, if the people who bear the risk of starving are “another group or people”).
how does waste prevent a shortage from becoming a famine ?
Making the expected production a higher number than the expected need will give the headroom necessary to deal with a shortage without people starving.
If you’re aiming to produce food for a population of 100,000, but have the capacity to make food for 200,000, then you can afford to waste half of your food without starvation. You can also accommodate a 50% drop in production without starvation.
So that buffer is expected waste, but it’s also starvation resistance.
I do live in an expensive area, but didn’t mean to imply that the prices I’m describing are the lowest available. Some people choose to go to more expensive places, or order a more expensive option.