Sharks are older than the current rings of Saturn, and I’ll bet that the e-ring (the one which is primarily made of ice spewed out of enceladus) has been around for significantly longer than we give it credit for.
I was just finishing the Card Against Humanity:
“The fleshy fun bridge”
Padme meme: “you mean all the availableram in the computer, right?”
Anakin:
Padme: “you mean all the available RAM in the computer, right?”
Ah, no, it’s that the more efficient packing takes up less space, so the less efficient square is actually slightly larger than the other, compared to the smaller squares.
If the smaller squares are identical in both sets, then the larger square in the less-efficient set will be slightly bigger than the larger square in the more efficient set.
However, the target demographic for EVs is either “person who feels some modicum of compassion and responsibility for the world in which they live” or “fascist fuck who knows that, if they went more than thirty miles per hour, you wouldn’t be able to see the giant metal monstrosity they wave about in lieu of a dick and spine”
Neither of these demographics have incentive to speed. One of them is solely performative, and wants to be noticed for their dick-waving, while the other would not be speeding 300+ times, because they are probably a decent person.
Since a link to a wiki article does not an explanation make:
The optimal efficiency (zero interstitial space) is achieved when the ratio of the side length of the larger square to the sides of the shorter squares (let’s call it the “packing coefficient”) is precisely equal to the square root of the number of smaller squares. Hence why the case of n=25, with a packing coefficient of 5, is actually more efficient than the packing of n=17 given in the waffle iron, with a packing coefficient of 4.675. Since sqrt(25)=5, that case is a perfectly efficient packing, equivalent to the case of n=16 with coefficient of 4. Since sqrt(17)=4.123, the waffle packing (represented by the orangutan) above is not perfectly efficient, leaving interstices. However, the packing coefficient of the suboptimal solution (represented by the girl) is actually 4.707, slightly further from sqrt(17), and thus less efficient, leaving greater wasted interstitial space.
I agree. Admittedly, NDT does say “keep in mind, Bruno didn’t have any evidence for his claims. He was not a scientist.” But still, that scene came off as somewhat less appropriate. I think that, on balance, it’s about showing that entrenched systems of power and authority have an active disincentive to take progressive stances, or even allow radical voices to exist. Even if Bruno did have evidence on his side, the church still would have burned him. Were I making that episode, I would have made it more clear that there were good reasons for him being laughed out of Cambridge. He had no evidence, but the scientists’ arguments highlighted were mostly arguments from authority “but Aristotle said”, or “but the bible says”, rather than demands for evidence and argumentation. Even scientists can fall to the trap of entrenched ideas and authority.
I was just answering your question of why someone would want to arrange a prime number of squares. The waffle is clearly a meme.
Much like monarch butterflies, those are actually two separate species. The species of Curling Stone which returns to Scotland is actually on the IUCN Red List.
Cosmos (the NDT series) - my overall favourite series. If you like Cosmos a lot, consider watching the archives of the Royal Institution’s Christmas lectures
The Good Place - Existential Philosophy and Ontology 101, the TV Series. Hilarious, dramatic, and one of the most touching stories I’ve ever encountered
Person of Interest - Basically “What You’ll Learn on Lemmy: The TV Series”, about all of the wondrous horrors of the digital surveillance state in which we all live.
Precisely. Wilhoit’s Law
That candy crush story is, as the commenter said, a lie. I don’t know why they would suggest that adding on a lie is in any way good, since we know that this packing was discovered in the late 1990s. It’s on the wikipedia article for square packing (with sources) but I don’t feel like looking it up again.
I would still say it was a country of laws, but that is not the same thing as a country of justice.
The united states has not been a society of laws since at least 2020, and anyone telling you otherwise is either blind, stupid, lying, or some combination of the three
(I count the supreme court overturning settled law and all branches of government abetting treason as the actual final point of breakdown of the rule of law in this country)
I mean, the actual answer is severalfold: “sometimes, when you need to fill a space, you don’t end up with simple compound numbers of identical packages” is one, but really, it’s a problem in mathematics which, were we to have a general solution to find the most efficient method of packing n objects with identical properties into the smallest area, we would be able to more effectively predict natural structures, including predicting things like protein folding, which is a huge area of medical research. Simple, seemingly inapplicable cases can often be generalised to more specific cases, and that’s how you get the entire field of applied math, as well as most of scientific and engineering modeling
Precisely. That’s why I wrote the parenthetical about the greater efficiency of 16 as a perfect square. As the other commenter pointed out, this is a meme. This is only the most efficient packing method for 17 squares. It’s the packing efficiency equivalent of the spinal tap “this one goes to 11” quote.
But it reduces the usable space in the middle, as any rectilinearly-designed webpages will have areas on the far left and right that aren’t viewable except in small parts while scrolling.