Recent content by FactChecker

It's not clear what you classify as AI. If it is any ranking of videos or posts according to your past interests, I would agree that they are doing that. But I'm not sure I would call such ranking "AI". Even then, I am not sure that I really need help in finding posts that interest me. I could...

IMO, Veritasium tries hard to be correct. It might be nice to leave a comment on the video about the mistake. UPDATE: I see that the video already has an appropriate comment by Rafael Silva. PS. Proofreading your own work is a hard, endless, thankless, job.

Good catch. You are correct. What the man says from 13:04 to 13:20 seems all correct, but the video illustration is bad. Everyone sees the light hit the same spot on the spaceship wall. Relative to the ship's accelerating frame, the light path curved down and hit the wall lower. Relative to the...

Good catch.

I never tried it, but the indentation seems to make it hard to cut and paste code whose indentation was at a different level. How would that work? Do the editors modify the indentation when the code is pasted?

IMO, the first duty of a person asking for help is to make a correct, accurate question. Part of the OP is trivially wrong if ##p=q##.

Good! There aren't that many programmers who do that now because I have killed a lot of them. But the bodies are getting harder to hide. ;-)

Ha! One of my gripes is that some people given a simple task to program are tempted to create their own language to do it. They overload every operator. They are infatuated with OOP concepts that they have just learned.

I spoke too soon when I said your example looked simple. If it is setting up a linked list of integers, data, possibly scattered around in memory, and then tracing through the linked list inside the loop, that is not so simple. The short time you mentioned does not seem so bad. It's not like it...

How long does it take? Python has a reputation of being very slow, but I would be surprised if something that simple took a noticeable time. I have practically no personal experience with Python, so I am curious.

These days it is easy to get a lot of significant digits in a calculation. Here is a Perl example that does a simple division calculation to 90 digits. use Math::BigFloat; Math::BigFloat->accuracy(90); #$pi =...

I mentioned the statistical significance because you said it was for a statistics class. In any case, the significance of digits, whether statistical or calculation/roundoff, can go beyond your claim that the true value must be 0.9999999999... so only 0.9999 are significant in 0.99991234

It is important to know what the algorithm is doing with the list. Some algorithm times grow exponentially. Others do not. That has nothing to do with the computer language. You would have to rule that out before you blame the language.

What if you know, at a 6-sigma significance level, that the value is between 0.99991233 and 0.99991235? Wouldn't all the digits 0.9999123 be within the 6-sigma significance range? Why does a limit of 1 even matter?

Is it even possible to gather "qualitative" information without force measurements, or are those techniques just used to visualize and explain the force measurements? ADDED: Maybe in extreme cases, like extreme turbulence, some rough conclusions can be drawn.