this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2024
1201 points (98.9% liked)

memes

10259 readers
3258 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 49 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] brophy@lemmy.world 116 points 7 months ago (2 children)
[–] wischi@programming.dev 18 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Original post is not linearly interpolating but exponentially.

[–] Localhorst86@feddit.de 28 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (3 children)

this comic uses a log scale (I extrapolate this from the only two data points given).

[–] NeatNit@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 7 months ago

(apologies for pedantry) This can't be the case, as the zero point is visible in the graph and even gets crossed to the negatives. Log scale graphs only show positive values and place zero infinitely below the horizontal axis.

[–] threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

If that were the case, the y-axis label would be log(NUMBER OF HUSBANDS), no?

[–] oce@jlai.lu 5 points 7 months ago

It's a choice, it's not mandatory to use a log on your y axis when you plot a log.

[–] wischi@programming.dev 1 points 7 months ago

Nice. Haven't thought about that 🤣

[–] agent_flounder@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago

New data point in 3...2...

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.world 67 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Neatly showing why when all you have is two data points you can't just assume the best fit function for extrapolation is a linear one.

Mind you, a surprisingly large number of political comments is anchored in exactly that logic.

[–] wischi@programming.dev 46 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Doubling every three months is an exponential interpolation and not a linear one!

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.world 19 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

Good point and well spotted!

PS: Though it's not actually called exponential (as it isn't e^nr-3-month-periods^ but rather 2^nr-3-month-periods^ ) but has a different name which I can't recall anymore.

PPS: Found it - it's a "geometric progression".

[–] wischi@programming.dev 15 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

By tweaking a few parameters you can turn every base into any other base for exponentials. Just use e^(ln(b)*x)

PS: The formula here would be e^(ln(2)/3*X) and x is the number of months. So the behavior it's exponential in nature.

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

By that definition you can turn any linear function a * x + b, "exponential" by making it e^ln(a*x +b) even though it's actually linear (you can do it to anything, including sin() or even ln() itself, which would make per that definition the inverse of exponential "exponential").

Essentially you're just doing f(f^-1^(g(x))) and then saying "f(m) is e^m^ so if I make m = ln(g(x)) then g(x) is exponential"

Also the correct formula in your example would be e^(ln(2)*X/3) since the original formula if X denotes months is 2^X/3^

[–] wischi@programming.dev 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It doesn't matter if you divide ln(2) or x by three, it's the same thing.

[–] Beldarofremulak@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Get a room you two

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

PPS: Found it - it’s a “geometric progression”.

A terminology that I learned from the Terminator 2 movie. Only that was, I think, a "geometric rate".

[–] Telodzrum@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)
[–] Aceticon@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

One of the best mathematical stories from ancient times, IMHO,

[–] catch22@startrek.website 12 points 7 months ago (2 children)

It's cold today, so much for climate change 🧐

[–] Cqrd@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 7 months ago

Close, if you'd instead called it global warming I'd have bought it

[–] NeatNit@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Dammit, we're on a cooling trajectory, prepare for a new ice age and the approach to absolute zero by end of year

[–] Goun@lemmy.ml 43 points 7 months ago

Huge if true!

[–] chetradley@lemmy.world 31 points 7 months ago

If you've ever seen a growth chart, you know that newborns grow incredibly quickly, but the rate of growth tapers off over time. That being said, my daughter will be six feet tall by the time she's 2:

[–] Rambomst@lemmy.world 20 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It looks like he aged 5 years in 3 months...

[–] Vash63@lemmy.world 9 points 7 months ago

As a father I can confirm this seems right

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 19 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Why is the wreath still there?

[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 28 points 7 months ago (1 children)

3 months of chronic sleep deprivation

[–] GlitchyDigiBun@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 7 months ago

How're the kids?

[–] therealjcdenton@lemmy.zip 15 points 7 months ago (2 children)
[–] WarmSoda@lemm.ee 14 points 7 months ago

It's not his?

[–] FrostyCaveman@lemm.ee 5 points 7 months ago

That it’s not Christmas anymore?

[–] Annoyed_Crabby@monyet.cc 11 points 7 months ago (1 children)

His son's face looks like that's not the first time dad tell that joke.

"i've heard that before, dad."

[–] agent_flounder@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

3 month milestone: baby is so over it

[–] TheBat@lemmy.world 7 points 7 months ago

Line goes up. Can't refute that!

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 7 points 7 months ago

There's another problem that his math missed. His baby-making rate stands at one per three months. Extrapolating that for all humans puts the population's doubling rate at EVERY THREE MONTHS! In 10 years, there will be a lot of ~3 trillion kg kids!

If every 10 billion people can make a new earth every year, I think we should be able to get on top of this.

[–] dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago

Plot twist: the bio-dad is actually either Galactus or Ego.

[–] Guntrigger@feddit.ch 5 points 7 months ago

7.5 trillion pound coins is a lot, I wonder how much they weigh.

[–] Gorely@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 7 months ago

Math checks out.

[–] AgentGrimstone@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago
[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Mafs by mafks

[–] neonred@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)
  1. How is size ("big") even associated with mass ("weight") in this relation?

  2. What is a "pounds"?

[–] Futurama@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

They're making the (possibly false) assumption that density will stay the same, so size must grow with weight.

Of course, it's equally likely that size will remain constant. It changes or it doesn't -> 50/50 odds. Until the point it all collapses into a black hole.

[–] peg@lemmy.world -3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Why does he mispronounce his surname?

[–] Ephera@lemmy.ml 3 points 7 months ago

Could be German. It's not pronounced precisely like "Kyle", but close enough, and "Keil" is the German word for "wedge".

case oh become red bee media CEO confirmed?😱😱😱😱😱