Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | rexer's comments login

I think that was a typo and they meant 22 + 47, which equals ~70 Ohms

Note that tolerance and uncertainty are different. Tolerance is a contract provided by the seller that a given resistor is within a specific range. Uncertainty is due to your imprecise measuring device (as they all are in practice).

You could take a 33k Ohm resister with 5% tolerance, and measure it at 33,100 +/- 200 Ohm. At that point, the tolerance provides no further value to you.


It’s not nearly that simple:) Component values change with environmental factors like temperature and humidity. Resistors that have a 1% rating don’t change as much over a range of temperatures as 5% or 10% components do. This is typically accomplished by making the 1% resistors using different materials and construction techniques than the lower tolerance parts. Just taking a single measurement is not enough.

I’ve only ever seen “this ^” refer to the parent comment, not the one directly above it as you mention. So as long as the comment hierarchy is maintained (which it is on HN) then the reference is clear


That one doesn’t quite work for me. A thermostat has a purpose: keep a temperature. An ocean doesn’t really have a purpose.


Native speaker here, this has kept me distracted on a couple long drives.

  “X is all but Y”

  Interpretation 1: X has moved so close to Y that it may as well be Y  
  -> X loosely equals Y   
  (I think this is the colloquial understanding)

  Interpretation 2: In the set that represents X, Y has been removed  
  -> X is not Y
Excuse the poor notation, I hope this is clear! The tldr is this confuses me too sometimes


Yeaaah. But it feels like "all" could be everything that is positive OR negative, so if you have all the positive and all the negative, and you take the one positive away (or the most positive), it is slightly negative (or very negative)?


Yea! I thought along the same lines, but I wasn't sure how to write it out. If X is on a spectrum, and Y is removed, it's closer to not-Y.

Edit, eh your explanation probably explains it better anyway :)


I really appreciate your positive responses to my off-topic out-of-blue observations.


It throws me off because it sounds sarcastic depending on which parts you emphasize. "The fire department all but put out the fire".


Great comment! Maybe you can help me with a book recommendation?

I was recently looking for a book which was basically your comment, but more in depth and covered the last couple thousand years. I wanted a to read about the history of astronomy - yknow, what was the state of the art in, say, 1350 or whatever. If you know of anything, I’d be super interested!


Terence Tao did a great lecture on this, https://youtu.be/kY1gfrhNUIg?si=9u9k8of6-jRybwCG


ya


Unfortunately I don't have any books to recommend. I don't remember where I learned about Cepheid variables and type 1a supernovae (maybe science shows, maybe youtube, ...) but I learned about the transit of Venus stuff on a big Wikipedia rabbit hole one evening.

I think the pre-quantum mechanics era for physics and astronomy is super interesting. People figured out so much with such primitive tools, and it's all very accessible and easy to understand.


Cosmos by Carl Sagan covers similar stories including the history of astronomy and the mathematics invented to explain it - it is like a whistle stop tour of these subjects and more + ties them together conceptually.


You might be interested in "Unrewarded" by "Ben Moore" which has an interesting take by telling the history of astronomy through the lives of those that made these discoveries but were not awarded a Nobel Prize.


Cosmos by Carl Sagan covers this history. Either the book or the still-excellent TV series.


You might like "Coming of Age in the Milky Way".


This looks perfect, thank you!


Big Bang: The Origin of the Universe by Simon Singh.


Surely a cold shower helps? If it causes your body to trigger self-heating process, surely that’s proof your body has been cooled to less than dangerously high levels and the shower has provided at least temporary relief.


> Could you elaborate about not how you aren't really any more in control when sober?

Not the person you responded to, but I can give it a shot.

I think the crux is that you don't have as much control as you think you do, even when sober. Whether you realize it or not, you're still at the whims of yourself and environment: emotions, time of day, exhaustion, pressure. You can't think or analyze yourself out of that. So sure, you may take more risks when drinking, but so what? Do what feels right in the moment.*

* Y'know, within reason. Buying plane tickets = good, getting a forehead tattoo = bad.

> My aversion to alcohol largely comes from wanting my best judgement intact in order to better survive complex situations.

This really resonates with me, and it's something I'm actually try to minimize. I've been finding being present -- and not attempting to foresee and prepare for uncomfortable situations -- to be a much happier place to be. And should a scary situation arise, I trust my future self to handle it appropriately. Or he won't, and that's fine too!


A couple months ago, prior to the latest season of Better Call Saul, I signed up for AMC+ to catch up on old episodes. I was very surprised to see _none_ were available to watch. Furthermore, there’s a banner warning now at the stop stating the latest season (now over) is only available until August 30th.

I’m not sure what happens after that, but the assumption that all released episodes will always be available is no longer true.


Not quite, though, right? Because the magnitude of those two vectors is different: the magnitude of the latter one is 1.7. I agree with the rest of your statement.


Yes exactly, I was only focused on the direction, not the magnitude.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: