wow i see a variation of SWAT'ing someone. Just flood your unliked neighbour with aliexpress packages. It costs you 0.5$ ant 75$ for him. real life DoS attack.
And because they aren't morons, Pizza places will generally deny an order of 20 pizzas, pay on delivery, to an address they don't have an existing relationship with.
Cops haven't seemed to figure out that way of reducing abuse. Maybe if we pay them what we pay pizza delivery workers they will figure out how not to swat people.
Pizza places figured out not to do that because it's more profitable not to do that. Cops don't care because they still get to play with their toys and they generally have qualified immunity for civil violations that occur during the swatting.
You can not deliver a pizza based on a 2% chance of fraud. If there's a chance of bomb, shooting etc the same threshold doesn't apply. So the police have completely different criteria.
One child comments makes a better suggestion. Display only a change in % since period start. Who cares about the absolute price. You only care about percentage change.
And yes, all charts would automatically start from 0 as a side effect.
there are definitely times when you care about absolute price—e.g., if you are trading options that strike at given prices, or if the company has convertible debt that can be converted at a given strike price, or if there is a risk of the exchange delisting you if you consistently trade below $1.
Most of the times I've heard of it happening it's someone who's net worth is well below the threshold for this (indeed well below the threshold where they actually need to pay any income tax to the US government), but because of the headache of needing to file the paperwork and the fact that a lot of banks don't want to deal with US citizens due to extra requirements imposed on them by the US government (via its financial system).
But rotation direction depends on the observer. If i see galaxy spinning clockwise, this means someone observing galaxy from behind it sees it rotating counter clockwise. So are we just located so in the universe that we see 2/3 spinning clockwise and another counter?
The actual paper makes more sense: "the number of galaxies in that field that rotate in the opposite direction relative to the Milky Way galaxy is ∼50 per cent higher than the number of galaxies that rotate in the same direction relative to the Milky Way."
It just occured to me that "rotation direction" is a pretty coarse measurement. Actually, you could look at the angle of a galaxy relative to ours, where (let's say) 0° is viewed exactly from "above" (rotating clockwise), 180° is viewed exactly from "below" (rotating counterclockwise), 90°/270° is viewed side-on etc. How about some stats based on this parameter?
What does "above" or "below" even mean in the context of something without a top or bottom? Or are you defining "above" to mean "the vantage point from which the galaxy appears to be rotating in the direction of earth clocks" for the purpose of this question?
Not to disagree with your justified Socratic questioning, but this sparked my interest and I figured I'd share my (novice!) TIL: it appears the IAU uses a coordinate system based on our solar system on January 1st 2000, 00:00 AM, or "J2000.0". Thus (0, 0, 0) is at the ~center of Sol and the x and y are within Earth's orbital plane, which means the z axis is orthogonal to that. In other words, it seems like "above"/"up" in a astronomical sense denotes the same approximate direction as "Northward"/"North", which is pretty fascinating!
Of course as an arrogant computer scientist I think they're downright kooky for not basing it on the galaxy, but ce la vie. Presumably there's one of those too, and this just wins for boring social inertia reasons as much as for any technical ones.
Of course this doesn't really matter for the above musing since top/bottom would purely be conventional based on our viewpoint, but otherwise illuminating on the issue of understanding rotation directions across the universe.
There wasn't anything intentional about my question. I just didn't understand what thebparebt commenter meant!
I don't think I understand how your reply relates to the question either, though, because I was asking what it means to see other galaxies "from above" or "from below," when it seemed like that had to do with which direction they appear to be spinning from here.
Your answer is about what we consider "above us" or "below us," but we can still see a galaxy "below us" "from below" relative to it, if it (or we) are "upside down," and I couldn't figure out how we determine the orientation of "upside down" or "backward" for every other galaxy.
This is actually why rotational math is more complicated in 3d than you would expect. It's something game developers get used to, because accessing and modifying a rotation requires knowing what the orientation is relative to a fourth axis. That's what a quaternion is. In the situation of this story, it's in reference to the milky way's vertical axis.
this is a hard one for me to instinctively understand spatially, so I’m imagining myself stood in a room with arrows pointing left and right. if I have 3 arrows facing left in front of me and behind me I have 3 arrows facing left -- from my perspective when I turn around -- then I step past one of the arrows and now I have 2 left facing on one side and then in front of me what was now a left arrow is a right arrow, so now there's 5 lefts and 1 right. so extrapolating that, the observation is possible, but it still doesn't explain the imbalance, does it? you would expect most places in the universe to have a roughly even distribution from any perspective, I think?
...now the packet in front of you has our focus group research inside you'll find the breakdown including key word association with the brand the top two being originality and fresh which i think are great things to keep in mind as you begin working on matrix four and who knows how many more...
reply