dogsoahC

joined 7 months ago
[–] [email protected] 27 points 3 months ago (8 children)

You bought a single strawberry?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Get caught doing what? What loop am I now out of?

[–] [email protected] 28 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I mean, with that van... Not saying it's not weird, but, like, I get it.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That's the point. To make the low-population area more intense. Because relative to the population density, there were 100 times as many sightings. Or what am I missing.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 3 months ago (4 children)

There are a number of normalization algorithms. Easiest would be to just divide by the area's population count. That gives you the relative number of bigfoot sightings or fursuits per capita, removing any skews introduced by varyin population size.

Say you have two areas:

Area 1: 100000 people, 1000 fursuits, 500 bigfoot sightings Area 2: 1000 people, 10 fursuits, 5 bigfoot sightings

Without knowing the population size, it looks like more fursuits means more bigfoot sightings. But if we divide by the population size, we get 0.01 fursuits and 0.005 bigfoot sightings per person in both areas.

Hope that helps. ^^

[–] [email protected] 64 points 3 months ago (6 children)

Now normalize it for population density.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 months ago (2 children)

As someone not from the USA: I guess I agree that, for the upcoming presidential election at least, voting centrist is the only viable option. But the generalized "vote centrist because it could he worse" is infuriating and makes me want to punch whomever made this. Just because they're not actively anti-working class doesn't mean they're in any real way champions of the working class. They're in the pocket of industrialists just like the right, and thus will never meaningfully challenge the status quo.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

If it would mean things getting cheaper for poor people, it wouldn't even be all that bad of an idea.

Well, except for the privacy issues, obv.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago
  1. I did disable the scanning.
  2. Looked it up. Seems like it's actually pretty low when not connected.

I never really thought about it because I use Bluetooth about once month at best. Still, leaving it on when I don't need it seems silly. But maybe it only does when you don't need it again a few minutes later.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (4 children)

Because it drains your battery like you poked a hole in it?

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 months ago (11 children)

Wait, do you just keep your Bluetooth on when you don't need it? Is that... are people doing that?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

I'll add it to my ever-expanding TODO list, thanks.

view more: ‹ prev next ›