- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
I have seen this or a variation of this too many times now, saving this for my own meme responses, its too fucking useful.
Some bureaucrats in Mexico City tried this years ago.
An important ring road had two lanes in each direction. To increase its capacity, they didn’t actually widen the road; they just repainted the lane markings to turn two lanes into three, and claimed a 50% capacity increase!
Everyone immediately screamed about being crammed together just centimetres apart, accidents increased and the city officials quickly u-turned; they repainted to have just 2 lanes in each direction again.
But they then tried to claim that as that was a 33% decrease, and that because they had earlier increased it 50%, that meant they had achieved a net 17% increase in the road’s capacity!
Brought to you by the same people that can’t explain tides
Tide comes in, tide goes out. You can’t explain it!
Bread goes in. Toast comes out. It’s a mystery!
Magnets, how do they work?
Nobody knows! Like how you can only see the effects of the wind, but can’t see or explain it.
That knowledge is probably locked away in the 90% of our brain we don’t use.
Ah yes I hate those
And hate windmills
At least they keep the turtles cool
Windmills do not work that way! Good night! 😂
Any respectable man of science will tell you that due to thermodynamics, the windmills actually result in a net heating effect
yeah they think the MOON does it lmfao, everyone knows it’s the CIA’s totally epic wave machine for selling more surfboards 🌊🏄♀️🐟
I thought this was c/funny not c/deeplyconcerning
TBF Yang really did write the equation in the sloppiest way possible.
Like I know what he MEANS but no math professor in the world would let this shit slide.
Yeah if you put it:
100 - (100 x 0,1) = 90
90 + (90 x 0,1) = 99
It comes quite obvious. And I know the brackets are redundant, but my coder mind forces brackets to all math formulas for readability.
Was it on purpose, maybe.
I think of it as
100 x 0.9 = 90
90 x 1.1 = 99
Am I the odd one out?
Yes.
But also, Barqs does have bite.
Even
100 - 10% = 90
90 + 10% = 99
Works better than what he did, because that’s how you’d enter it on a standard calculator.
Um you can type like that into a calculator?
Readability is important. I do the same thing, because just because something is technically correct doesn’t mean there isn’t a better way to do it. I’m very pro-bracket.
It’s twitter, why’d anyone put effort in what they write.
That’s what makes it great bait
Yeah, for idiots
pegglegg back in fifth grade: ‘why i need to learn this math stuff. i aint never gunna use it’
It’s not that you will regularly have a calculator in your pocket
Checkmate
you still need to know what buttons to push on the magic box, and in what order…
Yeah the “checkmate” was supposed to signify that irony
“It’s not like you’ll regularly have a little box in your pocket with access to the sum of all of the knowledge in the world but you’ll have to sift through an equal amount of incorrect knowledge and have the ability to differentiate the two.”
And how long to push them.
That kind of math didn’t start for me until letters started showing up in it. This is basic shit though!
I might as well throw the same comment in here. You learn this pretty quickly when you bet on meme stocks. Down 90% then up 100% I can assure you, you are no where near where you started.
Same with crypto. You’ll get a notification something went down 10%, then up again 10%, but if you zoom out you see it’s just been slowly going down on average since the last huge spike.
Both sides are right in a way. It just depends on what you’re comparing the +/-10% to
This is clearly about the US stock market crashing. In that case it’s always the days gain/loss, in which case Yang is the only person who is right.
This is important because a lot of people saw “down 10%” and now “up 10%” without realizing that’s still day over day loss.
That is the difference between percent and percentage points.
It’s only the same if it’s up 10% compared to the original number. It all depends on your time period, you could be up 30% compared to 7 years ago.
Tesla stock prices are good example of this. They are down ~50% since december and up ~70% since lowest point in april last year.
Not even close to that anyway, the dow jones for example went from 44k to 37k back up to 40k. Still hasn’t even regained half the value it lost.
This is why in forecasting and time series analysis is used the log difference, a 10% increase or decrease on the log scale gives you the same value being added or removed.
Yes, that requires a reference value to be decided upon beforehand.
Not really, you do t=n and t=n+1, for n= 1, 2, 3 for a quick view on volatility.
Then ypu look up for correlations between e[t=n | t= 0, t= 1…] for different Ns. For more I would need to check out my notes
Oh I was imagining something entirely different. Like a simple logarithmic scale of a signal, I do not know anything about time series analysis. Should’ve kept my mouth shut
Multiplication is commutative dipshits.
A x B = B x A
So 1.1 x .9 is always going to be .99, regardless of the order. Didn’t we learn this in like middle school?
(Edit … to be clear I’m calling the people in the image dipshits, not the people commenting here).
Huh? We’re talking about percentages not multiplication. Where’d the 1.1 and .9 come from?
If you increase something by 10% you’re doing this:
(10% • X) + X
(.1 • X) + X
1.1 • X
So you’re just multiplying the original value by 1.1. Similarly for subtracting 10% you’re multiplying by .9
So the order in which you add or subtract 10% doesn’t matter. You always get the same number.
I have 100 dollars. I lose 10% of it. I now have 90 dollars. Now I increase my 90 dollars by 10%. Is it your assertion that 10% of 90 is 10?
No. Because increasing 90 by 10% is:
90 • 1.1 = 99
Percentage is relative to current value, not previous calculations. 10% of 90 is 9.
I wonder why he has a peg leg
