Most people who want him to drop out were never going to vote for him anyway.
People (perhaps erroneously) perceive a chance of Biden actually doing it. Trump will never drop out as winning the presidency is his only shot at avoiding incarceration. He’ll probably run again in 2028 if he’s still around by then.
Trump isn’t incumbent, meaning the GOP already had a full primary in the past year. They’ve already determined they don’t have a better alternative. Technically the Dems could have nominated someone other than Biden, but it was never a very likely possibility, so people aren’t as familiar with Democratic alternatives.
Republicans either don’t believe any of the criticisms you made of Trump are true, are okay with them, still believe him to be the lesser of two evils, or some combination of these. This is largely due to right-wing propaganda e.g. Fox News, OAN, Info Wars, etc.
I’m no expert, these are just what I perceive to be happening. There’s probably other factors at play as well.
Edit: with the recent supreme court rulings, I’m guessing that he may be able to avoid jail even if he doesn’t win. I still don’t see any chance he’ll drop out.
The constitution has decreed a two term limit, now let us see it enforce it. Pieces of paper may tell us how power is to be used, but in the end paper is paper, and power is power. A lot of Americans call on the power of the constitution while ignoring what it says.
They say your time is much better spent guaranteeing people who already will vote blue show up to polls than trying to change the opinion of people who will vote red.
So that looks like asking people “do you have a plan to vote?” And perhaps in a less nosy phrasing: “When will you vote?” “How will you get there?”
People verbalizing a plan makes them more likely to follow through.
There are many places you can sign up to go canvassing, which is great. I would suggest in addition to and maybe before that, make a list of everyone you know and would feel comfortable talking to, and talk to them about voting. You will get much more mileage from existing relationships. (It’s like how sales differentiates a warm lead and a cold lead)
Once you’ve exhausted that list then every little bit still helps. I do think high density events like farmers markets, community gatherings, concerts, games, etc have better rate of contact than door to door.
I realize I just essentially said to tell people to vote while you were asking for something more. I wanted to share that because some people think that posting “vote” is the same as having a conversation about voting. Posting is not nearly as effective.
Another thing that might help is directly asking elected officials to intervene. Staffers for politicians keep a tally of calls and letters they receive for/against a given issue. So while your words may not move an elected, you and some friends can get them to act on an issue. If you have a group you can also request a meeting to discuss your issue which is even more effective. Politicians take notice of organized groups of constituents since that’s a block of votes for/against them and possible a group knocking doors for/against them.
The trouble is I don’t know what the ask is. There should be a specific action you’re demanding: “introduce this bill” “cosponsor this bill” “vote for/against this bill”. And it has to be something they’re able to do. I don’t know what that thing would be.
Pack the supreme court (but there’s not time for that or majority in the house).
Long term I think building true power means growing communities, joining unions and cooperatives. Most of us aren’t rich or powerful enough to be heard, which is why organizing is so important. None of this is fair or easy to do.
True enough. But given that we are going to drive ourselves to extinction in a geological blink of an eye, it really didn’t do us that great. Should have evolved into a crab.
I mean, you can’t really say that we’re going to drive ourselves to extinction, until we’ve been driven to extinction. Most things people list as likely to do this, climate change, nuclear war, are things that could conceivably do so, but honestly aren’t likely to. Destroy civilization maybe, but that just takes disrupting supply lines hard enough. Extinction means nobody, anywhere on the planet survives, even if it’s some little pocket of people in some corner of the world whose climate is good after warming is considered and which isn’t a target of any nuclear arsenals, because in a number of generations such a little pocket can grow to repopulate the planet again. It’s not an impossible thing for sure, but killing off a species capable of surviving in almost any climate zone found on the planet, with the ability to manipulate the growth of it’s own food supply, and adapt new tools actively in response to problems within a single generation, is a difficult task.
We’re not the only ones that can do that. Wolves, dingoes and other wild dogs, and hyenas are also persistence predators. All species of the Homo genus were persistence predators but we’re the only one still around.
E:Our level of hand eye coordination is unique to the Homo genus. We’re the only living animals that can use thrown weapons effectively. Chimpanzees are the next best throwers and at a range of 6.5ft they hit their target with about 11% of their throws.
I think the invention of engineering is what finally broke evolution, but there are a lot of factors we have that bootstrapped us to that point. Walking upright on two legs is more efficient at the price of raw power. Many creatures can outrun a human but no land animal can come close to our jogging range. A Cheetah can go 60 miles an hour for a minute or so but a human can go 10 miles per hour for 6 hours straight. It also frees our forelimbs, already made flexible, versatile and dexterous by our distant tree swinging ancestors, for tool use. Funnily enough, another ability that is unparalleled in nature is our ability to throw things with accuracy and power. You also need pretty good hands to master fire, and thus cooking, and thus unlocking extra nutrients from the food you catch, which provides for that very hungry brain of ours. A few millennia later and we’ve pretty much got control of the biosphere itself.
I think the invention of engineering is what finally broke evolution
While true, we can be more specific here what quality or trait allowed us to become engineers. Being able to engineer is by itself something that can even exist in genetic memory, instinctual. There are a lot of animals that do engineering, but have never come anywhere close to what humans do. Beavers, birds, ants and termites arguably are better engineers than most humans on an innate level. (I’ve also known some engineers who are incapable of some very basic life skills.)
What separated us from evolutionary processes and also allowed us to become engineers is the capability to abstract information and use those abstractions to predict the future, extending our “reach” of influence into the further future than most animals can calculate. This required us to develop strong continuity of thought and experiences and with this also came the ability to analyze and compare complicated events to find patterns. This gave us a huge edge when we were surviving around predators that were able to easily dominate us. Nowadays these abilities mostly cause of mental health conditions as we try to use tools designed for navigating glaciers to navigate a world of social media, zoom meetings, Tinder profiles, electric car recalls and democratic electoral politics.
Being able to engineer is by itself something that can even exist in genetic memory, instinctual.
I don’t think this is the case. There are creatures that instinctively construct, like ants and beavers, but their constructions are more an emergent behavior from simpler rules or systems. Their behaviors have evolved, the ants that dig slightly more efficient nests were more successful and went on to reproduce more offspring colonies.
At the root of engineering is the sentence “If I do this, then I bet I can get this to happen.” That behavior is unique to humans. It takes a lot of forebrain to do, and to develop that forebrain took a very successful omnivorous, multi-strategy primate.
Speed runs of the video game Super Mario World for the SNES are divided into a lot of categories, some allow glitches, some don’t. Glitchless runs are just about playing the game as intended as efficiently as you can. The absolute fastest run though, Any%, involves a trick where you perform a glitch that allows you to write arbitrary values into RAM, effectively reprogramming the game on the fly to trigger the end cut scene. This is called Arbitrary Code Injection. Now you’re playing a different game by a different, more abstract set of rules called 6502 assembly.
Upright bipedal gait with knees that lock, dexterous hands with opposable thumbs on highly articulated arms not significantly used for locomotion, binocular, tri-color vision granting great depth perception, the ability to sweat to stay cool for long periods of time under moderate exertion? All of that is just gettin’ gud, playing the game of evolution exceedingly well. Sometime between tying a knapped flint to a stick to make an axe and digging the first irrigation trench we arrived at that level of Arbitrary Code Injection. We’re not playing the same game as the other animals anymore.
I don’t disagree with anything you’re saying, but it kinda sounds like an engineer trying to make their career/passion into more than a clever trick which comes as a result of learning how to abstract information to better manipulate the world.
“Engineering” isn’t a fundamental quality of the universe, it’s a word we have made up to describe honestly a lot of different things. There’s nothing wrong with calling what humans learned to do “engineering” and it wouldn’t be inaccurate, but I’m saying you can simplify that more, to just the quality we learned, which is how to take information from the past and from right now to synthesize pictures of tomorrow, and then abstract that conclusion to share with others. Being able to share abstract conclusions about future events is a far, far more profound skill, there’s no parallel in nature, not even “kinda” like beaver engineering. Engineering comes from this ability, so I’m just trying to describe the order of carts and horses.
In packs, but they are also hunting in cold climates where they can lose heat a little easier. However, many dogs do have pretty good endurance, but I doubt they could do a marathon.
We had the tall stride thing going, we had the super-endurance thing going already, we had gotten good at tool-use like many other primates, in that we could use sticks and rocks to beat things and poke things, just like modern chimps and apes. (Modern primates also throw stones, it’s not the evolution-killer on its own that the meme is making it out to be.)
No, the REAL thing that soared us beyond all members of the animal kingdom is how we started abstracting information and sharing it. IE: language, writing, and the cognitive processes behind those skills that allow us to plan ahead. Not just planning ahead, but being able to set up actions far in advance, like planting seeds because we know a plant will come out of it. Moving our camps to where animal herds migrate to so we can stay close to the food, and just the day-to-day actions like preparing a fire in advance so you can see when it gets dark, bringing things with you to use later, having an idea how to ration food, being able to share your plans with others, communicating your movements to other hunters, and yes, all this made us exceptional hunters. When other primates were still mostly foraging for plants and bugs, our ancestors used this “thinking” thing to start getting massive doses of meat. Amino acids, proteins, high-density fuel, food for growing brains.
Not to mention, we’re the only creature that chooses when to reproduce. We used this foresight to plan our futures and our families. This is a massive changeup from how nature has handled reproduction. For the vast majority of life on Earth, breeding is just this thing that “happens” at certain points and everything leads to that event, and nothing really has control over how that event plays out.
Breeding is still a big deal for us, just look how horny we all are, but we decide when we’re going to have babies, and while it doesn’t seem a big deal here and now, it was a game changer when we were migrating packs of hunter-gatherers, following the seasons and the herds of animals.
Our story of how we got here is without question the most fantastic story ever. You are the product of over four and a half billion years of uninterrupted successes. A family tree going back a thousands of millions of years without break, surviving apocalypses that have turned our entire globe to ice, to fire, to water and other unimaginable catastrophes that sometimes lasted for millions of years.
So now you made it, your billions of generations of ancestors secured your survival against all odds, whatcha gonna do with it?
I was with most of this until the selective breeding part. Did prehistoric humans have a concept of this? Do we have evidence of that? If so, that sounds rather interesting. I’m just a bit skeptical is all.
The impact of human fertility cycles ("concealed ovulation’) and human evolution is a vast, deep field of study and speculation in itself, but I am making some very sweeping generalizations here, referencing people’s capability to choose when to reproduce on the broadest levels, not that there was a period or specific instance of this having an impact… more like, it made a difference over very large scales of time, as evident by the fact that our breeding cycles are nothing like most other mammals.
I mean, every existent species is the result of millions of generations. We all fill our niches, until we don’t. So even the humble tortoise is just as remarkable as us in that way, but I bet they will outlast us given how long they’ve existed.
The thing that always stuck with me about evolution is that we are related to everything. The pup I’m sitting next to is pretty close to me in terms of evolutionary time, the potatoes I ate are a lot more distant, but it is still my cousin, etc. It really makes me feel like I’m part of the world knowing that.
Dating apps, like all apps, are majorly funded by giant companies, because there’s no realistic path to scaling up from 100 users to millions of users without a bunch of investment money.
Say I want to create a new, decent app that takes us back to the days of stuff like early OkCupid which was smartly done and actually worked okay.
Well, if it gets any amount of quick adoption, I’ll be going from really low costs to astronomical hosting costs almost overnight. Often, the “checks haven’t cleared” as they say and while you’ve technically been paid, it’s all waiting in escrow or bank transfers or what fucking have you and you have giant bills falling due and no way to pay them
That’s why this happens to every single app under the sun. They’re left making tough decisions and selling out to unscrupulous people.
Because what no one wants to admit is that the funding model to how to make almost anything function on the internet at-scale where millions of people use it is fundamentally broken.
I mean fuck, isn’t that why we’re on the federated splinter-net where people can justify the costs of their small corner of federation, easing the overall load of financial demand?
Corporate internet is broken and they’re chasing ridiculously thin numbers to constantly be making more.
So, you’d probably need some kind of federated solution to not have it be destroyed by corporatized enshittification.
The fediverse as designed is actually pretty inefficient. If it ever were to go to Reddit scale it would melt down.
That’s because there’s effectively no batching for federation currently … every single vote from an instance is forwarded back to the instance hosting the community and must be processed individually. So if you get 500k votes on something even if it’s from 200 servers, the servers hosting the community have to be able to withstand the flood of votes and store the associated data… And that’s just votes.
Worse yet, those votes then get replayed to every single one of those 200 servers one by one. So every server needs 500k vote entries and all the associated traffic … even if half of the servers are just 1 guy looking at cat videos once a month.
Federating actually is way more expensive than just adding another user as designed.
That’s kinda the exact opposite. Not many people want to use small instances, so not many people are interested in fixing something like that. However, let’s say lemmy.world becomes unusable because of too much cross-server communication. That would cause inconvenience to way more people, increasing the likelihood that someone will do the work to fix it.
There are so many more eyecatching things wrong with Trump, so his age never gets brought up. Biden mostly just has his age and the Israel situation, so those are the two things you hear about the most.
TBH because of his physical presentation at the debate. Yeah, it’s short-sighted, but welcome to the public thought process. Whatever is churned thru the latest 15 minute media cycle seems to be what they believe.
Doesn’t matter if he had a cold and was dosed up on NyQuil or whatever; his voice was weak, he stumbled over making coherent sentence multiple times, and he just had a blank, open-mouthed stare when between questions. I’ve had shitty colds and been drugged up with cold meds and I know that feel of being sore, exhausted, hoarse, and disconnected. You just want to go have a lie-down, not a public debate against a raging, insulting, narcissistic asshole. But it takes someone willing to understand all that and give Biden the benefit of the doubt.
There are far too many that start from the “old” part and just attribute everything possible to that which they find disagreeable.
his voice was weak, he stumbled over making coherent sentence multiple times, and he just had a blank, open-mouthed stare when between questions.
And apparently that matters more than the blatant lies and non-answers coming from the other side. Gotta say, Americans do seem significantly dumber than the average world citizen.
he may. but the last debate strongly suggested otherwise. someone asked why do people think that biden will be first to die and this is why. because he seem in significantly worse shape.
he looked like he was going to die before the debate ends. i absolutely don’t believe that, if elected, he will survive whole term.
(and that is ignoring the fact that having a pulse is quite low threshold for presidential candidate)
Don’t know about you, but I vote for policy, not a person. But you do what a lot of Americans do, vote for a personality, and that’s why Americans seem significantly dumber than the average world citizen.
i meant error in facts, not your inability to understand topic of the discussion (this isn’t discussion about policy), or the fact that i am not an american, so i am not voting for anything in us elections.
I did not take him as in worst shape. I saw a person who couldn’t believe the bullshit being said by a narcissistic moron. I would have the same look at my face in disbelief if I had to debate with someone that I thought still asked for crayons at a restaurant.
I saw a person who couldn’t believe the bullshit being said by a narcissistic moron. I would have the same look at my face in disbelief
that’s really not an argument in biden’s favor.
he had known trump for at least 9 years and he had been lying narcissistic moron that whole time. if he didn’t expect the most expectable thing in the world from him, and being surprised threw him off the rails in such manner that he wasn’t able to put together coherent sentence, how is he qualified for a job where there are actual surprises of enormous consequences on a daily basis?
yeah, nobody knows. but (un)fortunately “he isn’t able to put together coherent sentence, but maybe he isn’t going to die tomorrow” is not qualification for presidential office.
If you have cool nights, setup fans up at night to bring the house down to a lower temperature. Close everything up in the morning when the outside temp starts rising above your inside temp. If your place is insulated reasonably and there’s no excessive sun from windows, it will stay cool for the day.
Protip: Setup the fans in all rooms on one side of a chokepoint in your house/apartment (stairwell/hallway) to exhaust, to encourage airflow. Open up all the windows on the other side for intake. It’ll also help reduce pockets of hot air left over from the day before.
I practice this same thermal battery idea as well with an extra tip of having a couple of fans on timers (sun up to sun down) that sit on the floor and blow the cold air up. It makes a significant difference, especially if you can sit a fan where the cold air from the AC falls to the ground.
Pro tip: Point the fan so that it blows outside and DO NOT put it directly on the window or right next to it. Instead, move it ~50cm away from the window to take advantage of Bernoulli’s principle (push the air out more efficiently by pulling the air surrounding the fan).
You can cool down the room even if the door is closed. You are lowering the pressure inside your room so the outside air is forced to rush in. If you place the fan like I explained, and point it at the lower part of your window and you put your hand next to the upper part of the window, you will feel the cold air coming in.
Veritasium. Over time I realized his content is mostly about flashy half baked “sciencey” content like Discovery Channel. It’s meant to get an audience and nothing more. It lacks quality control, and fact checking. I only realized how many errors his videos have when he covered a topic I know more about. Also, the whole electricity thing and self driving car debacle only reinforced my views on his content.
Not sure about the self-driving, but he had a video challenging the idea that electrons in wires that carry electricity. Basically arguing that it was the electric fields themselves that carried the power, which is largely outside of the actual wires.
Not sure if that’s the same one where he asked what would happen if you used a light switch connected to a lamp by two wires. Apart from some truly egregious mistaken units (1s/c as unit of time), I vaguely recall thinking it was basically a huge clusterfuck of misunderstandings about what an electrical circuit diagram even is (stuff like real vs idealized components, parasitic capacitance / inductance etc.)
They’re the kind of ‘Well actually’ half true factoids that you never hope to encounter in the wild if you actually understand the stuff. For someone claiming to be enthusiastic about science communication he did one heck of a job poisoning concepts with subtly wrong/misleading explanations that make it a lot harder to explain stuff to anyone with the misfortune to encounter his version first.
electricity works by making the electrons jump through hoops. that video was pretty damn stupid and got ripped apart by every serious EE guy on youtube.
Sure, when you start decoupling the numbers from their actual values. The only thing this proves is that the fraction-to-decimal conversion is inaccurate. Your floating points (and for that matter, our mathematical model) don’t have enough precision to appropriately model what the value of 7/9 actually is. The variation is negligible though, and that’s the core of this, is the variation off what it actually is is so small as to be insignificant and, really undefinable to us - but that doesn’t actually matter in practice, so we just ignore it or convert it. But at the end of the day 0.999… does not equal 1. A number which is not 1 is not equal to 1. That would be absurd. We’re just bad at converting fractions in our current mathematical understanding.
Edit: wow, this has proven HIGHLY unpopular, probably because it’s apparently incorrect. See below for about a dozen people educating me on math I’ve never heard of. The “intuitive” explanation on the Wikipedia page for this makes zero sense to me largely because I don’t understand how and why a repeating decimal can be considered a real number. But I’ll leave that to the math nerds and shut my mouth on the subject.
The only thing this proves is that the fraction-to-decimal conversion is inaccurate.
No number is getting converted, it’s the same number in both cases but written in a different representation. 4 is also the same number as IV, no conversion going on it’s still the natural number elsewhere written S(S(S(S(Z)))). Also decimal representation isn’t inaccurate, it just happens to have multiple valid representations for the same number.
A number which is not 1 is not equal to 1.
Good then that 0.999… and 1 are not numbers, but representations.
One way to think about this is that we represent numbers in different ways. For example, 1 can be 1.0, or a single hash mark, or a dot, or 1/1, or 10/10. All of them point to some platonic ideal world version of the concept of the number 1.
What we have here is two different representations of the same number that are in a similar representation. 1 and 0.999… both point to the same concept.
If they aren’t equal, there should be a number in between that separates them. Between 0.1 and 0.2 i can come up with 0.15. Between 0.1 and 0.15 is 0.125. You can keep going, but if the numbers are equal, there is nothing in between. There’s no gap between 0.1 and 0.1, so they are equal.
What number comes between 0.999… and 1?
(I used to think it was imprecise representations too, but this is how it made sense to me :)
The rigorous explanation for why 0.999…=1 is that 0.999… represents a geometric series of the form 9/10+9/10^2+… by definition, i.e. this is what that notation literally means. The sum of this series follows by taking the limit of the corresponding partial sums of this series (see here) which happens to evaluate to 1 in the particular case of 0.999… this step is by definition of a convergent infinite series.
My brother. You are scared of infinities. Look up the infinite hotel problem. I will lay it out for you if you are interested.
Image you are incharge of a hotel and it has infinite rooms. Currently your hotel is at full capacity… Meaning all rooms are occupied. A new guest arrives. What do you do? Surely your hotel is full and you can’t take him in… Right? WRONG!!! You tell the resident of room 1 to move to room 2, you tell the resident of room 2 to move to room 3 and so on… You tell the resident of room n to move to room n+1. Now you have room 1 empty
But sir… How did I create an extra room? You didn’t. The question is the same as asking yourself that is there a number for which n+1 doesn’t exist. The answer is no… I can always add 1.
Infinity doesn’t behave like other numbers since it isn’t technically a number.
So when you write 0.99999… You are playing with things that aren’t normal. Maths has come with fuckall ways to deal with stuff like this.
Well you may say, this is absurd… There is nothing in reality that behaves this way. Well yes and no. You know how the building blocks of our universe obey quantum mechanics? The equations contain lots of infinities but only at intermediate steps. You have to “renormalise” them to make them go away. Nature apparently has infinities but likes to hide the from us.
The infinity problem is so fucked up. You know the reason physics people are unable to quantize gravity? Surely they can do the same thing to gravity as they did to say electromagnetic force? NOPE. Gravitation doesn’t normalise. You get left with infinities in your final answer.
Anyways. Keep on learning, the world has a lot of information and it’s amazing. And the only thing that makes us human is the ability to learn and grow from it. I wish you all the very best.
But sir… How did I create an extra room? You didn’t.
When Hilbert runs the hotel, sure, ok. Once he sells the whole thing to an ultrafinitist however you suddenly notice that there’s a factory there and all the rooms are on rails and infinity means “we have a method to construct arbitrarily more rooms”, but they don’t exist before a guest arrives to occupy them.
I strongly agree with you, and while the people replying aren’t wrong, they’re arguing for something that I don’t think you said.
1/3 ≈ 0.333… in the same way that approximating a circle with polygons of increasing side number has a limit of a circle, but will never yeild a circle with just geometry.
0.999… ≈ 1 in the same way that shuffling infinite people around an infinite hotel leaves infinite free rooms, but if you try to do the paperwork, no one will ever get anywhere.
Decimals require you to check the end of the number to see if you can round up, but there never will be an end. Thus we need higher mathematics to avoid the halting problem. People get taught how decimals work, find this bug, and then instead of being told how decimals are broken, get told how they’re wrong for using the tools they’ve been taught.
If we just accept that decimals fail with infinite steps, the transition to new tools would be so much easier, and reflect the same transition into new tools in other sciences. Like Bohr’s Atom, Newton’s Gravity, Linnaean Taxonomy, or Comte’s Positivism.
That does very accurately sum up my understanding of the matter, thanks. I haven’t been adding on to any of the other conversation in order to avoid putting my foot in my mouth further, but you’ve pretty much hit the nail on the head here. And the higher mathematics required to solve this halting problem are beyond me.
Decimals require you to check the end of the number to see if you can round up, but there never will be an end.
The character sequence “0.999…” is finite and you know you can round up because you’ve got those three dots at the end. I agree that decimals are a shit representation to formalise rational numbers in but it’s not like using them causes infinite loops. Unless you insist on writing them, that is. You can compute with infinities just fine as long as you keep them symbolic.
That only breaks down with the reals where equality is fundamentally incomputable. Equality of the rationals and approximate equality of reals is perfectly computable though, the latter meaning that you can get equality to arbitrary, but not actually infinite, precision. You can specify a number of digits you want, you can say “don’t take longer than ten seconds to compute”, any kind of bound. Once the precision goes down to plank lengths I think any reasonable engineer would build a bridge with it.
…sometimes I do think that all those formalists with all those fancy rules about fancy limits are actually way more confused about infinity than freshman CS students.
Eh, if you need special rules for 0.999… because the special rules for all other repeating decimals failed, I think we should just accept that the system doesn’t work here. We can keep using the workaround, but stop telling people they’re wrong for using the system correctly.
The deeper understanding of numbers where 0.999… = 1 is obvious needs a foundation of much more advanced math than just decimals, at which point decimals stop being a system and are just a quirky representation.
Saying decimals are a perfect system is the issue I have here, and I don’t think this will go away any time soon. Mathematicians like to speak in absolutely terms where everything is either perfect or discarded, yet decimals seem to be too simple and basal to get that treatment. No one seems to be willing to admit the limitations of the system.
Noone in the right state of mind uses decimals as a formalisation of numbers, or as a representation when doing arithmetic.
But the way I learned decimal division and multiplication in primary school actually supported periods. Spotting whether the thing will repeat forever can be done in finite time. Constant time, actually.
The deeper understanding of numbers where 0.999… = 1 is obvious needs a foundation of much more advanced math than just decimals
No. If you can accept that 1/3 is 0.333… then you can multiply both sides by three and accept that 1 is 0.99999… Primary school kids understand that. It’s a bit odd but a necessary consequence if you restrict your notation from supporting an arbitrary division to only divisions by ten. And that doesn’t make decimal notation worse than rational notation, or better, it makes it different, rational notation has its own issues like also not having unique forms (2/6 = 1/3) and comparisons (larger/smaller) not being obvious. Various arithmetic on them is also more complicated.
The real take-away is that depending on what you do, one is more convenient than the other. And that’s literally all that notation is judged by in maths: Is it convenient, or not.
I never commented on the convenience or usefulness of any method, just tried to explain why so many people get stuck on 0.999… = 1 and are so recalcitrant about it.
If you can accept that 1/3 is 0.333… then you can multiply both sides by three and accept that 1 is 0.99999…
This is a workaround of the decimal flaw using algebraic logic. Trying to hold both systems as fully correct leads to a conflic, and reiterating the algebraic logic (or any other proof) is just restating the problem.
The problem goes away easily once we understand the limits of the decimal system, but we need to state that the system is limited! Otherwise we get conflicting answers and nothing makes sense.
The problem goes away easily once we understand the limits of the decimal system, but we need to state that the system is limited!
But the system is not limited: It has a representation for any rational number. Subjectively you may consider it inelegant, you may consider its use in some area inconvenient, but it is formally correct and complete.
I bet there’s systems where rational numbers have unique representations (never looked into it), and I also bet that they’re awkward AF to use in practice.
This is a workaround of the decimal flaw using algebraic logic.
The representation has to reflect algebraic logic, otherwise it would indeed be flawed. It’s the algebraic relationships that are primary to numbers, not the way in which you happen to put numbers onto paper.
And, honestly, if you can accept that 1/3 == 2/6, what’s so surprising about decimal notation having more than one valid representation for one and the same number? If we want our results to look “clean” with rational notation we have to normalise the fraction from 2/6 to 1/3, and if we want them to look “clean” with decimal notation we, well, have to normalise the notation, from 0.999… to 1. Exact same issue in a different system, and noone complains about.
Decimals work fine to represent numbers, it’s the decimal system of computing numbers that is flawed. The “carry the 1” system if you prefer. It’s how we’re taught to add/subtract/multiply/divide numbers first, before we learn algebra and limits.
This is the flawed system, there is no method by which 0.999… can become 1 in here. All the logic for that is algebraic or better.
My issue isn’t with 0.999… = 1, nor is it with the inelegance of having multiple represetations of some numbers. My issue lies entirely with people who use algebraic or better logic to fight an elementary arithmetic issue.
People are using the systems they were taught, and those systems are giving an incorrect answer. Instead of telling those people they’re wrong, focus on the flaws of the tools they’re using.
This is the flawed system, there is no method by which 0.999… can become 1 in here.
Of course there is a method. You might not have been taught in school but you should blame your teachers for that, and noone else. The rule is simple: If you have a nine as repeating decimal, replace it with a zero and increment the digit before that.
That’s it. That’s literally all there is to it.
My issue lies entirely with people who use algebraic or better logic to fight an elementary arithmetic issue.
It’s not any more of an arithmetic issue than 2/6 == 1/3: As I already said, you need an additional normalisation step. The fundamental issue is that rational numbers do not have unique representations in the systems we’re using.
And, in fact, normalisation in decimal representation is way easier, as the only case to worry about is indeed the repeating nine. All other representations are unique while in the fractional system, all numbers have infinitely many representations.
Instead of telling those people they’re wrong, focus on the flaws of the tools they’re using.
Maths teachers are constantly wrong about everything. Especially in the US which single-handedly gave us the abomination that is PEMDAS.
Instead of blaming mathematicians for talking axiomatically, you should blame teachers for not teaching axiomatic thinking, of teaching procedure instead of laws and why particular sets of laws make sense.
That method I described to get rid of the nines is not mathematical insight. It teaches you nothing. You’re not an ALU, you’re capable of so much more than that, capable of deeper understanding that rote rule application. Don’t sell yourself short.
EDIT: Bijective base-10 might be something you want to look at. Also, I was wrong, there’s way more non-unique representations: 0002 is the same as 2. Damn obvious, that’s why it’s so easy to overlook. Dunno whether it easily extends to fractions can’t be bothered to think right now.
I don’t really care how many representations a number has, so long as those representations make sense. 2 = 02 = 2.0 = 1+1 = -1+3 = 8/4 = 2x/x. That’s all fine, we can use the basic rules of decimal notation to understand the first three, basic arithmetic to understand the next three, and basic algebra for the last one.
0.999… = 1 requires more advanced algebra in a pointed argument, or limits and infinite series to resolve, as well as disagreeing with the result of basic decimal notation. It’s steeped in misdirection and illusion like a magic trick or a phishing email.
I’m not blaming mathematicians for this, I am blaming teachers (and popular culture) for teaching that tools are inflexible, instead of the limits of those systems.
In this whole thread, I have never disagreed with the math, only it’s systematic perception, yet I have several people auguing about the math with me. It’s as if all math must be regarded as infinitely perfect, and any unbelievers must be cast out to the pyre of harsh correction. It’s the dogmatic rejection I take issue with.
0.999… = 1 requires more advanced algebra in a pointed argument,
You’re used to one but not the other. You convinced yourself that because one is new or unacquainted it is hard, while the rest is not. The rule I mentioned Is certainly easier that 2x/x that’s actual algebra right there.
It’s as if all math must be regarded as infinitely perfect, and any unbelievers must be cast out to the pyre of harsh correction
Why, yes. I totally can see your point about decimal notation being awkward in places though I doubt there’s a notation that isn’t, in some area or the other, awkward, and decimal is good enough. We’re also used to it, that plays a big role in whether something is judged convenient.
On the other hand 0.9999… must be equal to 1. Because otherwise the system would be wrong: For the system to be acceptable, for it to be infinitely perfect in its consistency with everything else, it must work like that.
And that’s what everyone’s saying when they’re throwing “1/3 = 0.333… now multiply both by three” at you: That 1 = 0.9999… is necessary. That it must be that way. And because it must be like that, it is like that. Because the integrity of the system trumps your own understanding of what the rules of decimal notation are, it trumps your maths teacher, it trumps all the Fields medallists. That integrity is primal, it’s always semantics first, then figure out some syntax to support it (unless you’re into substructural logics, different topic). It’s why you see mathematicians use the term “abuse of notation” but never “abuse of semantics”.
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.
I get that ever model is wrong, but some are useful.
There is nothing wrong about decimal notation. It is correct. There’s also nothing wrong about Roman numerals… they’re just awkward AF.
Basic decimal notation doesn’t work well with some things, and insinuates incorrect answers.
You could just as well argue that fractional notation “insinuates” that 1/3 + 1/3 = 2/6. You could argue that 8 + 8 is four because that’s four holes there. Lots of things that people can consider more intuitive than the intended meaning. Don’t get me started on English spelling.
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.
0.999… has no smallest digit, thus the carry operation fails to roll it over to 1.
That’s where limits get involved, snatching the carry from the brink of infinity. You could, OTOH, also ignore that and simply accept that it has to be the case because 0.333… * 3. And let me emphasise this doubly and triply: That is a correct mathematical understanding. You don’t need to get limits involved. It doesn’t make it any more correct, or detailed, or anything. Glancing at Occam’s razor, it’s even the preferable explanation: There’s a gazillion overcomplicated and egg-headed ways to write 1 + 1 = 2 (just have a look at the Principia Mathematica), that doesn’t mean that a kindergarten student doesn’t understand the concept correctly. Begone, superfluous sophistication!
(I just noticed that sophistication actually shares a root with sophistry. What a coincidence)
Someone using only basic arithmetic on decimal notation will conclude that 0.999… is not 1.
Doesn’t pass scrutiny, because then either 0.333… /= 1/3 or 3 /= 3 (or both). It simply cannot be the case when looking at the whole system, as opposed to only the single question 0.999… ?= 1 and trying to glean something from that. Context matters: Any answer to that question has to be consistent with all the rest you know about the natural numbers. And only 0.999… = 1 fulfils that.
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.
Why is basic arithmetic so sacred that it must not be besmirched?
It isn’t. It’s convenient. Toss it if you don’t want to use it. What’s not an option though is to use it incorrectly, and that would be insisting that 0.999… /= 1, because that doesn’t make any sense.
A notational system doesn’t get to say “well I like to do numbers this way, let’s break all the axioms or arithmetic”. If you say that 0.333… = 1/3, then it necessarily follows that 0.999… = 1. Forget about “but how do I calculate that” think about “does multiplying the same number by the same number yield the same result”.
catches people because using arithmetic properly leads to an incorrect understanding of repeating decimals.
Repeating decimals aren’t apart from decimal arithmetic. They’re a necessary part of it. If you didn’t learn 0.999… = 1, you did not learn decimal arithmetic. And with “necessary” I mean necessary: Any positional system that supports expressing rational numbers will have repeating digits. It’s the trade-off you make, by fixing the divisor (10 in our case), to make numbers easily comparable by size, because no number can divide any number cleanly because there’s an infinite number of primes. Quick, which is the bigger number: 38/127 or 39/131.
Any notational system has its awkward spots. You will not get around awkward spots. Decimal notation has quite few of them, certainly fewer than Roman numerals where being able to do long division earned you a Ph.D. If you can come up with something better be my guest, I already linked you to a starting point.
…oh wait I remember that Unicody user name. It’s you. Didn’t I already explain to you the difference between syntax and semantics until you gave up. I suggest we don’t do it again but instead, you review the thread.
Well, you seem to have forgotten that the woman in that video isn’t a Maths teacher, which would explain why she’s forgotten the rules of The Distributive Law and Terms.
until you gave up
I didn’t give up, you did.
I suggest we don’t do it again but instead, you review the thread
I suggest you check some Maths textbooks, instead of listening to a Physics major.
There! Syntax. We went over this. Seriously, we did, and, no, I got the last word.
I suggest you check some Maths textbooks, instead of listening to a Physics major.
I can check any textbook from any discipline. You know what? I could even ask my school teachers. Because I’m not American and I wasn’t taught shit that doesn’t match up with what professionals are doing.
You’re just another yank drunk on jingoism, “We do it like that, therefore, it is right”.
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.
What do you mean not taught yet? There’s nothing in the meme to indicate this is a primary school problem. In fact it explicitly has a picture of an adult, so high school Maths is absolutely on the table.
There is no method by which basic arithmetic and decimal notation can turn 0.999… into 1.
In high school we teach that they are the same thing. i.e. limits of accuracy, 1 isn’t the same thing as 1.000…, but rather 1+/- some limit of accuracy (usually 1/2). Of course in programming it matters if you’re talking about an integer 1 or a floating point 1.
If someone uses these systems as they were taught, they will get told they’re wrong for doing so
The only people I’ve seen get things wrong is people not using the systems correctly (such as the alleged “proof” in this thread, which broke several rules of Maths and as such didn’t prove anything), and it’s a teacher’s job to point out how to use them correctly.
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?
According to who? Where does it say what it’s about? It doesn’t.
please show me how basic arithmetic can make 0.999
You still haven’t shown why you’re limiting yourself to basic arithmetic. There isn’t anything at all in the meme to indicate it’s about basic arithmetic only. It’s just some Maths statements with no context given.
then a correct use of the system must be applicable to everything, right?
Different systems for different applications. Sometimes multiple systems for one problem (e.g. proofs).
You shouldn’t need a new system like algebra to be correct, right?
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.
According to me, talking about the origin of the 0.999…
Right. So not according to the meme, which doesn’t tell us where the 0.999… comes from. Nor the 1 - could be an integer, floating point, or an estimation. Thanks for playing.
Nah that explanation is basically using an assumption to prove itself. You need to first prove that 1/3 does in fact equal .3333… which can be done using the ‘convoluted’ but not so convoluted proof
Similarly, 1/3 = 0.3333…
So 3 times 1/3 = 0.9999… but also 3/3 = 1
Another nice one:
Let x = 0.9999… (multiply both sides by 10)
10x = 9.99999… (substitute 0.9999… = x)
10x = 9 + x (subtract x from both sides)
9x = 9 (divide both sides by 9)
x = 1
Not a proof, just wrong. In the “(substitute 0.9999… = x)” step, it was only done to one side, not both (the left side would’ve become 9.99999), therefore wrong.
As I said, they didn’t substitute on both sides, only one, thus breaking the rules around rearranging algebra. Anything you do to one side you have to do to the other.
For any a, b, c, if a = b and b = c, then a = c, right? The transitive property of equality.
For any a, b, x, if a = b, then x + a = x + b. The substitution property.
By combining both of these properties, for any a, b, x, y, if a = b and y = b + x, it follows that b + x = a + x and y = a + x.
In our example, a is x’ (notice the ') and b is 0.999… (by definition). y is 10x’ and x is 9. Let’s fill in the values.
If x’ = 0.9999… (true by definition) and 10x = 0.999… + 9 (true by algebraic manipulation), then 0.999… + 9 = x’ + 9 and 10x’ = x’ + 9.
if you are rearranging algebra you have to do the exact same thing on both sides
If you actually change any of the sides. Since, after substitution, the numeric value doesn’t change (literally the definition of equality), I don’t have to do anything – as I’m not rearranging. I’m merely presenting the same value in an equivalent manner. By contrast, when multiplying both sides by 10, since multiplication by 10 changes the concrete numeric value, I have to do it on both sides to maintain the equality relation (ditto for subtracting x’). But substitution never changes a numeric value – only rearranges what we already know.
No, you haven’t shown that, because you haven’t shown yet that 9x=9. Welcome to why this doesn’t prove anything. You’re presuming your result, then using it to “prove” your result.
What we know is that the right hand side is 10 times 0.9999…, so if you want to substitute x=0.99999… into the right hand side, then the right hand side becomes 10x (or 9x+x)… which only shows what we already know - 10x=10x. Welcome to the circularity of what you’re trying to achieve. You can’t use something you haven’t yet proven, to prove something you haven’t yet proven.
My degree is in mathematics. This is not how these notations are usually defined rigorously.
The most common way to do it starts from sequences of real numbers, then limits of sequences, then sequences of partial sums, then finally these notations turn out to just represent a special kind of limit of a sequence of partial sums.
If you want a bunch of details on this read further:
A sequence of real numbers can be thought of as an ordered nonterminating list of real numbers. For example: 1, 2, 3, … or 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, … or pi, 2, sqrt(2), 1000, 543212345, … or -1, 1, -1, 1, … Formally a sequence of real numbers is a function from the natural numbers to the real numbers.
A sequence of partial sums is just a sequence whose terms are defined via finite sums. For example: 1, 1+2, 1+2+3, … or 1/2, 1/2 + 1/4, 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8, … or 1, 1 + 1/2, 1 + 1/2 + 1/3, … (do you see the pattern for each of these?)
The notion of a limit is sort of technical and can be found rigorously in any calculus book (such as Stewart’s Calculus) or any real analysis book (such as Rudin’s Principles of Mathematical Analysis) or many places online (such as Paul’s Online Math Notes). The main idea though is that sometimes sequences approximate certain values arbitrarily well. For example the sequence 1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, … gets as close to 0 as you like. Notice that no term of this sequence is actually 0. As another example notice the terms of the sequence 9/10, 9/10 + 9/100, 9/10 + 9/100 + 9/1000, … approximate the value 1 (try it on a calculator).
I want to stop here to make an important distinction. None of the above sequences are real numbers themselves because lists of numbers (or more formally functions from N to R) are not the same thing as individual real numbers.
Continuing with the discussion of sequences approximating numbers, when a sequence, call it A, approximates some number L, we say “A converges”. If we want to also specify the particular number that A converges to we say “A converges to L”. We give the number L a special name called “the limit of the sequence A”.
Notice in particular L is just some special real number. L may or may not be a term of A. We have several examples of sequences above with limits that are not themselves terms of the sequence. The sequence 0, 0, 0, … has as its limit the number 0 and every term of this sequence is also 0. The sequence 0, 1, 0, 0, … where only the second term is 1, has limit 0 and some but not all of its terms are 0.
Suppose we define a sequence a1, a2, a3, … where each of the an numbers is one of the numbers from 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 or 9. It can be shown that any sequence of the form a1/10, a1/10 + a2/100, a1/10 + a2/100 + a3/1000, … converges (it is too technical for me to show this here but this is explained briefly in Rudin ch 1 or Hrbacek/Jech’s Introduction To Set Theory).
As an example if each of the an values is 1 our sequence of partial sums above simplifies to 0.1,0.11,0.111,… if the an sequence is 0, 2, 0, 2, … our sequence of partial sums is 0.0, 0.02, 0.020, 0.0202, …
We define the notation 0 . a1 a2 a3 … to be the limit of the sequence of partial sums a1/10, a1/10 + a2/100, a1/10 + a2/100 + a3/1000, … where the an values are all chosen as mentioned above. This limit always exists as specified above also.
In particular 0 . a1 a2 a3 … is just some number and it may or may not be distinct from any term in the sequence of sums we used to define it.
When each of the an values is the same number it is possible to compute this sum explicitly. See here (where a=an, r=1/10 and subtract 1 if necessary to account for the given series having 1 as its first term).
So by definition the particular case where each an is 9 gives us our definition for 0.999…
To recap: the value of 0.999… is essentially just whatever value the (simplified) sequence of partial sums 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, … converges to. This is not necessarily the value of any one particular term of the sequence. It is the value (informally) that the sequence is approximating. The value that the sequence 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, … is approximating can be proved to be 1. So 0.999… = 1, essentially by definition.
They don’t eventually become 1. Their limit is 1 but none of the terms themselves are 1.
A sequence, its terms and its limit (if it has one) are all different things. The notation 0.999… represents a limit of a particular sequence, not the sequence itself nor the individual terms of the sequence.
For example the sequence 1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, … has terms that get closer and closer to 0, but no term of this sequence is 0 itself.
Look at this graph. If you graph the sequence I just mentioned above and connect each dot you will get the graph shown in this picture (ignoring the portion to the left of x=1).
As you go further and further out along this graph in the positive x direction, the curve that is shown gets closer and closer to the x-axis (where y=0). In a sense the curve is approaching the value y=0. For this curve we could certainly use wordings like “the value the curve approaches” and it would be pretty clear to me and you that we don’t mean the values of the curve itself. This is the kind of intuition that we are trying to formalize when we talk about limits (though this example is with a curve rather than a sequence).
Our sequence 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, … is increasing towards 1 in a similar manner. The notation 0.999… represents the (limit) value this sequence is increasing towards rather than the individual terms of the sequence essentially.
I have been trying to dodge the actual formal definition of the limit of a sequence this whole time since it’s sort of technical. If you want you can check it out here though (note that implicitly in this link the sequence terms and limit values should all be real numbers).
She’s more of a Devils advocate. Just stating the wrong opinion for others to explain what’s right. There’s never any clever comeback, so I kind of think that’s the reason for her to shitpost so heavily.
I’ve blocked plenty of trolls here, but not her, yet.
Ok, so I’m not the only one who noticed that their spam has a weird taste to it. It’s got that vibe of some agreeable left-wing content but then feels likes it only there to mask authoritarian narrative building.
I’m glad I’m not the only one. That account is truly bizarre (from the point of view of how they write and express themselves). I’ve engaged with them a few times and it’s like a weird loop. I know it’s a real person, but it feels like talking to a script or dialog tree because it always goes down the same 1-2 dialog paths
I don’t see the connection… the 24 hr Le Mans race is completed by multiple drivers switching out every few hours so no one is driving 24 hours straight. That’s not how endurance racing works
You wouldn't believe the amount of legal ink that has been spilled trying to work out what the fuck the Do What The Fuck You Want To licence actually means, legally.
Now I kinda want to write a full license, complete with all the legal jargon, that takes up 43 pages of space to say you can do whatever the fuck you want with this software
Just list every single thing in existance the user can possibly do… “By agreeing to these terms the user can,… In case the user can’t do any of the following the user is permitted to not do any of the following.”
Discuit is not a federated social platform, and we do not plan to support federation in the future either. This is because we do not believe that federated platforms, for a few specific reasons, have a chance of becoming mainstream social platforms one day.
My point is that you can’t compare a platform like reddit to a protocol like email.
While gmail and outlook are insanely big, how much of all email traffic do they handle? Sure, they are insanely big, but I doubt they are above 50%
On the other hand, how big is reddit compared to all other link aggregators? I think it’s pretty surely far above 50%.
Or how big is YouTube as a VOD platform?
I’m not advocating for discuit, but being like “they think federation can’t build a mainstream platform, but look at email” is kind of missing the point.
Also email is the only example for federation. It’s an outlier, mainly because it was one of the first things on the net. Everything else is platforms, unfortunately.
Yeah but you gotta remember “vitamins” is just a dumbed down term to refer to fats and compounds. It’s not actually like food or anything nourishing for the hair. Like a lot of haircare stuff has vitamin e in it, which is supposed to help protect hair from hot blow drying damage and also make it shiny. A lot of the stuff is also moisturizers for your scalp.
kbin.life
Top