It is a common abbreviation in this way, I think
- 10 Posts
- 579 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: November 8th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
It wasn’t microgravity. It was an improperly ground mirror
8·19 days agoI think I’m losing my edge
6·21 days agoI’m a boy shocked there aren’t casualties being claimed. I don’t think I believe they got stuck in mud, just like a lot of the ogre engine trouble claims.
Exclude me, but what our you saying hear?
Take keys, hand back pocket chachkies
Enshittification strikes again?
He’s also often appeared in print as [redacted]
3·1 month agoI’ve always liked these and planted a few in a shady spot years ago. Didn’t know at the time they were in anyway poisonous, but had never planned on eating them anyway. I miss having a yard to grow things in.
151·1 month agoSo, a war of choice. Got it
6·1 month agoI’m tired of socializing losses. Let’s socialize some gains this time.
Most senators’ sons are in their fifties
41·2 months agoI bought my current car new - over 20 years ago.
2·2 months agoMaybe he could organize a pageant.
61·2 months agoGilligan’s Island
3·2 months agoI don’t recall it every being a mystery. When was this?
That is not a funny thing to do to our aquatic friends
9·2 months agoIt was. Glad to see her doing this again
2·2 months agoYes and no, I think. It isn’t really huge amounts of data, and the patterns aren’t super complex, so a neural network would pick up a lot. But, given how far the signals travel, the intermittent nature of the signals, and how little they can initially be associated with a particular vehicle, I think in most environments associating a particular set of signals with a particular car would require some human field work. Sure, there are circumstances where automated pairing would be trivial (like at a toll booth), but catching signals in the wild and processing by neural net alone might be ok for analyzing traffic patterns while not being enough for surveillance.
What is this even supposed to mean? Whenever I hear comparisons of numbers like this, I just cringe. Wouldn’t 1 times smaller be zero? (n - (1 x n) = 0). What is 875.87 times smaller? Undoubtedly, they mean to express that the population is one 875.87th the size, so why not say that? Something isn’t, as another example, 3 times cheaper; it’s one third the price.