Tlaloc_Temporal

Pulseaudio can remap channels directly, so you can take a 7.1 input and output two entire stereo outputs to a 7.1 speaker system, which would solve my issue and then some. Making a custom profile is a tad more involved than clicking buttons, but CLI isn’t needed at all.

I found a solution in under a minute that should work on most modern Linux DEs. I suppose it’s not by an official Linux support channel, but AskUbuntu was literally the first search result.

Ah, support as in “this program is supported”. I can definitely agree with that

better than any other platform out there when it comes to support

Lol, as a user Windows support is garbage. Every step is “restart, reinstall drivers, scannow”.

None of those things are going to make windows pass all LR audio to the FLR channels of a 5.1 system, yet I know it’s possible. It can happen if enough settings are fiddled with, but I don’t know which ones, and it gets reset every reboot.

None of those things are going to stop some system utility maxing out disk writing and freezing the system for 10 minutes every boot.

None of those things will stop hardware acceleration from crashing my browser.

• Lack of middle click paste.
• Lack of the ability to drag windows using “alt”.
• I can’t change the volume by using the scroll wheel.

These feel like DE specific complaints rather than Windows complaints. I wish I could use windowkey to switch applications for example.

Changing sliders with mouse wheel does sound cool, I want that.

Your last memory of Windows is 7? Lucky.

8 was Vista but with mobile UI.

10 eventually fixed 80% of 8’s problems, and added some gaming performance. Also, ads for featured windows store games. It’ll even preinstall them for you!

11 is just 10 but with most of the sensible parts removed. Also, you need DRM in your CPU to use it. UX? What’s that?

Sigh I miss 7…

Your mom’s schwarzchild radius is nearly as big as she is!

Good luck making a single stage to lunar surface rocket.

How would they determine if the ad is played without trusting the client? I guess they could screw with the buffer, but that would really piss of people with poor internet, and most people would prefer an ad-length black screen to whatever attention wrenching dark pattern manipulative brown noise wants to infect your mind today.

Not to mention that Vanced-type apps and content mirrors are still going strong, and proper alternative platforms like Grayjay and Nebula are getting more attractive.

I wonder how soon self-hosted video distribution will be feasible. Does ActivityPub support that yet?

Do you think items having variables and transforming based on those variables can be manipulated into temperature? Like hot ingots that need to be crafted a few times before they cool, or heatsinks that need to be recooled, or even delicate parts that melt into slag on Vulcanus.

I think transporting organic products is inevitable, unless you make a factory for each product next to the orchards. The orchards aren’t very dense either, so like real agriculture, we’ll probably need a lot of AgTowers to maintain a good throughput, so they can’t all be next to the factories.

Even then, spoilable products are needed on other planet’s crafting trees, so space platform transport is required for something along the line.

Nauvis, Vulcanus, Fulgora, Gleba, and planet 5. I think that’s all of them, just the far dark planet we haven’t seen yet.

I think new enemies are on the known planets as well, we just haven’t been introduced yet. Probably Gleba will have enemies. I’m terrified of what could survive on Vulcanus and Fulgora, maybe defence robots? And what biosphere could exists on a dark rock? Maybe whatever caused the Fulgora civilization to collapse?

It’s still a Pirelli neat table.

Ah, typo. 1/3 ≠ 0.333…

It is my opinion that repeating decimals cannot properly represent the values we use them for, and I would rather avoid them entirely (kinda like the meme).

Besides, I have never disagreed with the math, just that we go about correcting people poorly. I have used some basic mathematical arguments to try and intimate how basic arithmetic is a limited system, but this has always been about solving the systemic problem of people getting caught by 0.999… = 1. Math proofs won’t add to this conversation, and I think are part of the issue.

Is it possible to have a coversation about math without either fully agreeing or calling the other stupid? Must every argument about even the topic be backed up with proof (a sociological one in this case)? Or did you just want to feel superior?

simply accept that it has to be the case because 0.333… * 3. […] That is a correct mathematical understanding

This is my point, using a simple system (basic arithmetic) properly will give bad answers in specifically this situation. A correct mathematical understanding of arithmetic will lead you to say that something funky is going on with 0.999… , and without a more comprehensive understanding of mathematical systems, the only valid conclusions are that 0.999… doesn’t equal 1, or that basic arithmetic is limited.

So then why does everyone loose their heads when this happens? Thousands of people forcing algebra and limits on anyone they so much as suspect could have a reasonable but flawed conclusion, yet this thread is the first time I’ve seen anyone even try to mention the limitations of arithmetic, and they get stomped on.

Why is basic arithmetic so sacred that it must not be besmirched? Why is it so hard for people to admit that some tools have limits? Why is everyone bringing in so many more advanced systems when my entire argument this whole time is that a simple system has limits?

That’s my whole argument. Firstly, that 0.999… catches people because using arithmetic properly leads to an incorrect understanding of repeating decimals. And secondly, that starting with the limits of arithmetic will increase understand with less frustration than throwing more complicated solutions around.

My argument have never been with the math, only with our perceptions of it and how we go about teaching it.

This isn’t about limits of accuracy

According to who?

According to me, talking about the origin of the 0.999… issue of the original comment, the “conversion of fractions to decimals”, or using basic arithmetic to manipulate values into repeating decimals. This has been my position the entire time. If this was about the limits of accuracy, then it would be impossible to solve the 0.999… = 1 issue. Yet it is possible, our accuracy isn’t limited in this fashion.

You still haven’t shown why you’re limiting yourself to basic arithmetic.

Because that’s where the entire 0.999… = 1 originates. You’ll never even see 0.999… without using basic addition on each digit individually, especially if you use fractions the entire time. Thus 0.999… is an artifact of basic arithmetic, a flaw of that system.

Different systems for different applications.

Then you agree that not every system is applicable everywhere! Even if you use that system perfectly, you’ll still end up with the wrong answer! Thus the issue isn’t someone using the system incorrectly, it’s a limitation of the system that they used. The correct response to this isn’t throwing heaps of other systems at the person, it’s communicating the limit of that system.

If someone is trying to hammer a screw, chastising them for their swinging technique then using your personal impact wrench in front of them isn’t going to help. They’re just going to hit you with the hammer, and continue using the tools they have. Explaining that a hammer can’t do the twisting motion needed for screws, then handing them a screwdriver will get you both much farther.

Limits of accuracy isn’t algebra.

It never was, and neither is the problem we’ve been discussing. You can talk about glue, staples, clamps, rivets, and bolts as much as you like, people with hammers are still going to hit screws.

You underestimate how little people think when purchasing things. None of this would be a problem if everyone looked at the price per 100g first, but ooo 3 $5… And then the size reduction usually goes alongside a packaging change, like jumbo or family size; “New look, same great taste!”. It’s all a distraction, out of sight, out of mind and all that.

Also, the 330ml cans are taller, and because of the square-cube law they only need to be a little skinnier to be smaller. They’re also not usually displayed next to the normal 355ml cans. Out of sight…

Also, who is going to laude a big corp product for a logistics change in the first place? I barely see anyone complaining about shrinkflation for packaging reasons as it is. I’d see a better slack fill level on one product and think, “This must be old stock” or “This is the last time we’ll get bags this dense”.

What do you mean not taught yet?

I mean those more advanced methods are taught after basic arithmetic. There are plenty of adults that operate primarily with 5th grade math, and a scary number of them do finances…

limits of accuracy

This isn’t about limits of accuracy, we’re working with abstract values and ideal systems. Any inaccuracies must be introduced by those systems.

If you think the system isn’t at fault here, please show me how basic arithmetic can make 0.999… into 1. Show me how the carry method deals with Infinity correctly. If every error is just using the system incorrectly, then a correct use of the system must be applicable to everything, right? You shouldn’t need a new system like algebra to be correct, right?

Neither of those examples use the rules of those system though.

Basic arithmetic on decimap notation is performed by adding/subtracting each digit in each place, or multiplying each digit by each digit then adding those sub totals together, or the yet more complicated long division.

Adding (and by extension multiplying) requires the carry operation, because digits only go up to 9. A string of 9s requires starting at the smallest digit. 0.999… has no smallest digit, thus the carry operation fails to roll it over to 1. It’s a bug that requires more comprehensive methods to understand.

Someone using only basic arithmetic on decimal notation will conclude that 0.999… is not 1. Another person using only geocentrism will conclude that some planets follow spiral orbits. Both conclusions are wrong, but the fault lies with the tools, not the people using them.

The system I’m talking about is elementary decimal notation and basic arithmetic. Carry the 1 and all that. Equations and algebra are more advanced and not taught yet.

There is no method by which basic arithmetic and decimal notation can turn 0.999… into 1. All of the carry methods require starting at the smallest digit, and repeating decimals have no smallest digit.

If someone uses these systems as they were taught, they will get told they’re wrong for doing so. If we focus on that person being wrong, then they’re more likely to give up on math entirely, because they’re wrong for doing as they were taught. If we focus on the limitstions of that system, then they have the explanation for the error, and an understanding of why the more complicated system is preferable.

All models are wrong, but some are useful.

Again, I don’t disagree with the math. This has never been about the math. I get that ever model is wrong, but some are useful. Math isn’t taught like that though, and that’s why people get hung up things like this.

Basic decimal notation doesn’t work well with some things, and insinuates incorrect answers. People use the tools they were taught to use. People get told they’re doing it wrong. People give up on math, stop trying to learn, and just go with what they can understand.

If instead we focus on the limitations of some tools and stop hammering people’s faces in with bigger equations and dogma, the world might have more capable people willing to learn.