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

memes

10217 readers
2053 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 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] brophy@lemmy.world 117 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] 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) (3 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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] 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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] 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 (2 children)

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

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 23 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Someone's clearly not a parent.

[–] WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world 17 points 7 months ago

Oh oh, don't tell me, I'll guess! It's the baby, right? The baby's not a parent?

[–] Rambomst@lemmy.world 16 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 11 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] Rambomst@lemmy.world 20 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (3 children)

I was talking about the dad, lol.

I should have been more specific given they are both male.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 15 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Oh, yeah. That makes a lot more sense! And that's what being kept up every night for months will do to you.

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

To be fair, the lighting conditions are way more flattering in the first pic. When you have even lighting all over your front, it minimizes wrinkles. The second pic seems like it was taken in the evening with only one light source (or a few...but it seems like maybe an overhead porch light), making wrinkles and such far more prominent.

[–] agent_flounder@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

As a parent with a kid who didn't sleep well I knew what you meant lol

[–] Vash63@lemmy.world 10 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 (1 children)
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

That's Maury's job, not ours.

[–] 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

[–] 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.

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

Line goes up. Can't refute that!

[–] 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

load more comments
view more: next ›