To add to this: I bought a Steermouse license well over a decade ago. I paid once. I’ve been using it ever since and it’s maintained and updated. No subscription. Isn’t charging for updates. This is what software should be.
It's a joke about mass vs weight, since the imperial "pound" is unspecific as to being pound-_mass_ or pound-_force_, the latter being based on Earth's standard gravitional field.
The conversion of kilograms, mass, to pound-force, weight, relies explicitly on the given acceleration of Earth's gravity, ~9.8 m/s².
Since Mars has a gravity with acceleration ~3.7 m/s², for two things that weight the same on Earth and Mars the latter would need to be larger in mass to weigh the same in pound-force.
The biggest issue though, and something I will say even having been through multiple physics courses myself I don't recall having had literally explained, is that even though "pounds" can refer to force and not mass, they are not equivalent. 1 pound-mass ≠ 1 pound-force.
It is actually converted using the Earth's standard gravitional field's force, so 1 pound-mass ≈ 9.8 pound-force.
Thus, the amount on bench's is the pound-mass amount, say 66 kg or 145 pounds-mass, which is not 145 pounds-force but actually *1421*.
It's also true even that the gravitional force can change up to as much as 0.5% depending on where on Earth you are due to the shape of the Planet.
While the joke made _me_ laugh, but it seems as you dig further there isn't often reference to pounds as a force as much as I had thought, so I even learned something from it too!
Lots more information on Wikipedia[0] around these that is particularly useful if you for any reason want to know more:
It's still 145 lbf and 145 lb mass. Under Earth's gravity the numbers are identical. (That is, a mass of 1 lb has a weight of 1 lbf).
The 10x difference comes in with metric units (kg and N).
Edit: might as well mention the rocketry connection... Probably the most well-known use of pounds-force is when discussing thrust of rocket engines (and other means of jet propulsion).
I'd love to use this but is there any risk that this will get Google to flag me as a bot/malicious? I wanna make sure I can still pass captchas and don't screw anything up for testing on my dev machine.
By the first definition it requires “unselfish regard”. If MrBeast is pulling 54 million a year (along with lots of fame and clout) he’s not exactly qualifying for the first definition.
Definition 2 is the one I’m most familiar with from the animal kingdom, and it actually requires that the giver either gain nothing or lose something. So that may be where people are coming from who take exception to his behavior being described as “altruistic”. By definition, it is not.
That makes sense. Thanks for that. If unselfish means that I can't benefit in addition to you benefiting I don't think I see altruism as a super positive thing.
Turns into "he gave up his last dollar for that person!" which is seen as a super altruistic thing to do, but now, not only does that person only have a dollar, you've taken yourself out of the game and can no longer do any more good in the world because you don't have any resources left.
I guess thats what I mean. Of course he wouldn't continue because he wouldn't have the money to continue.
I give you 30 grand or cure your blindness or buy you a house and you participate in my video. It seems like a win win.
If the argument is that he is making more than they are making off that one video, again, that goes back to me having benefit less than you.
Maybe the problem is the framing people have of it being a charity? Even in that light, he creates content for people to consume for free, the content is driven by him giving things away, the people who pay him are businesses who also get a service provided by all of those people finding out about their product/service. It seems a lot less extractive than most business models.
> I guess thats what I mean. Of course he wouldn't continue because he wouldn't have the money to continue.
Not exactly what I was saying. Let's say he stopped today. Or when he hit $25M in total wealth. Some figure where he could live a comfortable life while still contributing to these kinds of acts.
Would he still do it? Or is continued profit / brand building / etc a key component? Is this fundamentally a transaction?
I would assume not. I don't think he thinks of it as a charity, but the tension between continued profit and doing amazing things in this case doesn't bother me. I think it's positive in that the better he does the more people he can impact. Transactions can be incredibly positive even if they are dispassionate.
I understand your point. It's a good one and well taken. Very eloquently put.
Those two things are definitely not always aligned and probably arent always in this case either.
My grandmother was quite the baker, and was known in particular for her pies. For apple she swore by the Pippin. She was very upset when they became uncommon in supermarkets.
I’ve carried on her tradition, and as a substitute I do half Fuji and half Granny Smith. I think it provides a nice balance. But, I’m always on the lookout for Pippins.
TL;DR (from skimming thru the paper) he figured that a song's spectrogram looks like a starry sky, so matching a song is like finding a constellation on the sky. How do you do it efficiently? By searching for simple features of your constellation, such as pairs or triples of bright stars - those can be pre-hashed to find matches instantaneously. Once a possible match is found, you compare the rest of the constellation. Nothing breathtaking, in other words. However, among all the men who talked, he was the one who both talked and did, and that's his achievement.
Brilliant stuff is easy to understand, a lot harder to come up with. I could do that! (With a little help from wikipedia, audio processing libraries, the answer sheet, and the knowledge that it's possible in the first place)
To me, this highlights how hashing is the closest thing programmers have to magic.
One point not mentioned (and I’m just paraphrasing Levine from Money Stuff here):
It’s crazy because it would probably be BETTER if you had more bots. Then you could say that your revenue per user was higher and you could argue that you had more room for growth. So, if anything, lying and OVERestimating the bot count would help your valuation more.
Not really, because the revenue comes from ads not users. Twitter makes profit from ad buyers thinking they are reaching many users. The "revenue per user was higher" you mention is actually "cost per ad impression" and ad buyers want that to be low.
reply