Here, take this cigarette!

You don’t want a department that you throw it over the fence to, you want them embedded on your team. Keep those feedback loops TIGHT bois

Metric and imperial don’t change the way carpenters work because in the case you mentioned of a sub-mm dimension, that’s in the 64th of an inch range. Carpenters don’t ever measure to that precision because of the fluidity of the material. Craftsman will at that point just cut to fit.

My point with those hard numbers wasn’t that metric would make those numbers easier, only that your examples were intrinsically favouring imperial measures. Maybe it’s easier to say:

What’s easier to figure out, 1/3 of 3cm or 1/3 of 1 93/512 inches? You can easily construct scenarios for a measure that are easy in one and obscene in the equivalent. It’s less about the notation and more about the measure. If you assume all of the initial measures are round in imperial units, then the math will automatically be easier. If your designs were designed in metric, they’ll be round to metric. If they’re in imperial, they’ll be round in imperial.

And when this degree of precision is actually important, imperial craftsmen (engineers, machinists) already use decimal. A “Mil” is a milli-inch.

Anyhow, again, I agree that for some very specific scenarios dealing with fractions is easier, especially when you’re doing any base 2 operation.

I just think that you would be surprised how infrequently the issues you’re imagining would actually manifest themselves, working with intrinsically metric designs, and that you’re underestimating the number of scenarios where not dealing with fractions actually would make your life easier.

I understand the underlying principle, but I’m not sure if it actually shakes out that way for a few reasons:

If you asked a carpenter to cut something to 1/24", they’d be like “what?”. Sure, the math was easier, but the result is unusable. No measuring instrument has divisions of 24ths. The person making a cut would need it in terms of 8ths, 16ths, etc. Any time saved at the initial stage is lost when they need to convert it again to a useable denominator.

Secondly, what’s 3/32nds of 17/128ths?

The examples you give are harder in decimal form because nobody is going to make metric carpentry designs for things that are to the tenth of a millimeter, so 1.25cm isn’t even real.

I admit, there are a lot of specific scenarios where fractional convention is helpful. I just personally think they don’t outweigh the drawbacks.

And it’s described locally as 2/5 and 3/5, rather than 40 or 60 cm?

If so, I’m shocked, but delighted to have learned something unexpected

Does Germany use 3/5m spacing?

“intuitive” in the sense you described just means “familiar”. One feels like one. Ten feels like ten.

The magic of metric isn’t that each base unit is somehow more valuable in metric. It isn’t. One will always feel like one.

The magic is how easy it is to convert from the “small one”, the “medium one” and the “big one”.

Also, the convention of fractional inches is ridiculous.

It should be trivial to order 27/64, 3/8, and 7/16. Don’t make me do that math.

We’re not oblivious ;)

'Nailing down the definition of a story point to “1 developer day” oughta do it ’

I’m wondering if it’s a regional thing? I just looked online for pressure treated 2x2’s and all the ones I’m seeing (home hardware, home depot, advantage lumber, etc) list as actual being 1.5x1.5

I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a well written recipe for boiling frogs.

I’m in love with these foghorn leghorn memes and I hope they never stop

It won’t be too long before it’s this AND the mess they make every time they eat.

Prioritize an easy to clean high chair don’t make my mistake.

When dealing with fractions of an inch, measuring devices ALWAYS use base 2 denominators (1/2 inches, 1/4 inches, 1/8 inches, 1/16 inches). They actually have ticks on the tape measure to represent those values. By convention, measurements are as well written down using that same principle.

It’s so ubiquitous, that people fall apart if it’s deviated from.

Also, from a practical perspective, there won’t be an explicit mark on a tape measure for any of those measurements, so they’d need to kinda fudge that if they wanted to take a more precise measurement with a standard tape measure.

In Canada at least, it’s pretty common for a tape measure to have metric and imperial units. Not sure if that’s the same on the US. In this situation, I’d just use the metric. And for any of the highlighted measurements, I don’t think I’d be to stressed out about if I mismeasured by a 16th of an inch anyways.

Trump moved the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and that message wasn’t lost on anyone in the middle East.

Although Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians has ALWAYS been grotesque, this move was intended to embolden Israel and piss the fuck out of everyone else.

I’m not saying this caused the current state of events, but it certainly was another straw on the camels back.

Ok. I am wrong. Positive male role models are numerous and recieve equal airtime to their toxic counterparts.

I agree with everything you’ve said. Generally.

I think it’s maybe telling that the character who popped into your head was from a film 30 years ago, though. Do you think it’s possible the availability has been on the decline in the last 30 years? Most of the young men who are being woo’d by this nonsense weren’t even alive when Jurassic Park was released.

And I’m not saying good role models don’t exist, just that they’re discriminated against for airtime because they don’t score as highly in the recently popularized metric of “drives engagement” by the consolidated private media entities.

I think critism is fine.

I think that the issue at a societal level is the lack of culturally elevated alternative role models.

I think this is particularly a byproduct of engagement driven media algorithms. Viewpoints and the people who espouse them which drive engagement are algorithmically rewarded. These algorithms can’t tell the difference between toxic or not, and toxic viewpoints generally drive more engagement.

There have always been forces which drive availability of viewpoints and personalities. When television was the primary form of media, it was TV execs. MTV decided what was cool.

But there was also public programming which could drive these things for social benefit. PBS in the USA and CBC in Canada. Both of these are now “out” in terms of medium (television/radio), and they also don’t get the funding to be competitive anyhow.

We ceded the space to “influencers” on the internet, governed by private companies , and we are reaping the benefits now.

Even Hollywood is terrible. Ted Lasso is maybe the only culturally powerful representation of positive masculinity I can think of. And I think people were starving for it.

So while I think critism is appropriate, I think exclusively laying it at the feet of the stupid indoctrinated masses is only half of it. Criticising a the capitalistic media system which abandoned these men is appropriate too.

I agree that the author didn’t do a great job explaining, but they are right about a few things.

Primarily, LLMs are not truth machines. That just flatly and plainly not what they are. No researcher, not even OpenAI makes such a claim.

The problem is the public perception that they are. Or that they almost are. Because a lot of time, they’re right. They might even be right more frequently than some people’s dumber friends. And even when they’re wrong, they sound right. Even when it’s wrong, it still sounds smarter than most peoples smartest friends.

So, I think that the point is that there is a perception gap between what LLMs are, and what people THINK that they are.

As long as the perception is more optimistic than the reality, a bubble of some kind will exist. But just because there is a “reckoning” somewhere in the future doesn’t imply it will crash to nothing. It just means the investment will align more closely to realistic expectations as the clarity of what realistic expectations even are become more clear.

LLMs are going to revolutionize and also destroy many industries. It will absolutely fundamentally change the way we interact with technology. No doubt…but for applications which strictly demand correctness, they are not appropriate tools. And investors don’t really understand that yet.

I have it on good authority that yes, we did. On GOOD AUTHORITY.