So, if you plan an arson as a protest, is that 8 years or 18 years?
So, if you plan an arson as a protest, is that 8 years or 18 years?
I’m on the youngest side of the millennials, when do I inherit, since I often like to phone in, as these days if you want something fixed quick, you’re better off calling (in Australia at least).
Much better waiting on hold for 10 mins than who knows how many business days before the customer service inevitably copy pastes something from the FAQ that doesn’t resolve your problem.
Also, I like to call friends, on the phone. And use SMS 0_0
Again, when can I get my inheritance, thanks haha
Honestly, good on you so much for sharing. The fact you’re not ashamed and willing to share could save someone from the same attack, and as others have pointed out, even the most security minded of us can have lapses in judgement.
I’m really glad you weren’t screwed in the end.
Chiming in with barely any knowledge on the topic.
Universities are massive institutions, with serious cash behind them. What the hell is stopping, say, all the public Australian universities just setting up their own journal, running it at cost for all the universities in Australia?
Make it make sense.
Next year will likely explode.
There are those of us who think windows 10 is passable, have used it for many years, and were never planning on switching to Linux because we’re normies.
Windows 11 changes that, and when security updates for Win10 end in 2025, I’m switching to Linux.
I am always neutral on this sort of thing (i.e. I believe in democracy, and despite what people will have you believe, Taiwan is not a monolith of opinion of the one China / reunification / independence question)
But this is fucking hilarious
I feel like practically every second session I’m qualifying some situation of feeling stressed with: “Unfortunately with the current economic system we have I need to…”
I wouldn’t be working so hard all the time if I didn’t need to so that I might possibly be allowed to have a permanent place of residence -_-
Imagine how boss a culture would be being able to count up to 31 on a single hand, and 1023 with two hands.
How the fuck is sick leave not protected. Y’all Americans need to be rioting over that shit. That’s wild
I so badly wish this was publishable. It would be SO useful.
We want the legend, rather than the man, it would seem
Could we not at least make various unchanging standards?
Like, housing & food inflation index?
Is that not vague and unchanging enough?
I know sourcing the data isn’t a walk in the park, but I know for a fact Victoria collects information on the first one pretty accurately.
I think we should have a “base needs” basket, because that’s never going to change. People need to eat, people need to sleep.
Thanks for indulging me in my vague, unlearned on the topic, questioning!
Honest question, why is this not how inflation is measured?
I feel like the basket of goods chosen in Australia is nonsense, considering rent went up by like 50% in two years, and prices in the supermarket have been insane, somehow inflation numbers only ever cracked the high single digits per year.
I haven’t looked into it deeper, yet, but seems fishy, and cherry-picked.
(Pressure) * (volume) = (# moles) * (gas constant) * (temperature)
The ideal gas law.
In another thread I admit I didn’t explain my position here well enough. I would only not explain this equation given sufficient context (e.g. I’ve shown all those variables in a table, and my intended audience is people familiar with basic chemistry, which I’d expect would be everyone reading the report for this particular example, since this is high school chemistry, and the topic of all reports I work on is chemical engineering.)
People can read the conclusions if they’re not familiar with chemistry, and for the detail, they’re not my intended audience anyway.
Generally I still hold the position that you should define variables as much as possible, unless it’s overly cumbersome, given your intended audience would clearly understand anyway.
In context this simple equation is obvious even if you change the symbols, as long as there is sufficient context to draw from.
No worries friend, no hard feelings and appreciate the engagement!
Yeah, agree it is a bit wishy washy in terms of gauging how much explanation to include ¯_(ツ)_/¯
I suppose (in my opinion) the mindset should be: include as much explanation as possible, without it being cumbersome.
I personally err on the side of over-explanation and have had some senior engineers give me feedback that it’s too much. Still learning for myself how much is too much.
Totally agree though, that there are many cases where people leave things out as assumed, when it’s not really reasonable to do so.
A side-thought on specificity: one of my biggest pet peeves is when people list pressure with the units of kPa, when they really mean kPag. In industry, you are rarely talking in absolute pressure (other than for pressure differences) and people then get lazy/don’t know/assume it’s fine to do something like: set point 100 kPa (when they mean 100 kPag). It isn’t fine though, because at lower pressures atmosphere counts for a pretty large percentage of the absolute value.
Understand your frustration with how I’ve communicated my position, sorry about that:
My justification for the examples I’ve given is there still needs to be other context, is based on complexity of the equation, and the intended audience of that equation.
An example of me not explaining a very simple equation would be perhaps a table of various cases:
| — | mass flow (kg/hr) | density (kg/m³) | Volumetric flow (m³/hr), V = m/ρ | | Case 1 | blah blah | blah blah | blah | | Etc. | … | … | … |
Realising now that markdown tables don’t seem to work 😅, hopefully this is still clear.
It may be a touch better to put variable symbols in the other columns, but:
As a recent example for this, in a data sheet I recently prepared, I literally just put a * in the references column and said “*calculated from other data sheet values” for the volumetric flow rate, because the intended audience would know how to do that, and the purpose was for me to communicate how that value was determined.
Me putting in the V = m/ρ in the hypothetical example I gave above is a just a little mind jog for the reader.
Where more complicated equations are used, of course these are properly referenced, usually even with the standard or book it’s come from.
I’ll redefine my position to: Clearly define all variables, unless it’s abundantly obvious to your intended audience from context.
My intended audience of the conclusions or final values are the layman. My intended audience of everything else is someone with a very basic chemical engineering understanding.
Your last point is a strawman:
I find it a bit contradicting to the very point you made about defining variables. If anything, one might be some home-grown genius that has real business getting into details but only ever used Chinese characters as variables
Because I’m writing in English, for an English speaking audience, and there is no such thing as a home-grown genius getting into my area because it’s a legal requirement that they have an honours degree. Even still, the two assumed knowledge equations I mentioned, which I would only not reference with sufficient context, would STILL be recognisable with totally random symbols.
| mass flow (kg/hr) | density (kg/m³) | Volumetric flow (m³/hr), 容 = 质/密 | Yup, a bit odd in an English context, but with the units information (always mandatory, of course) completely understandable.
There ya go (only used it up until highschool physics, in Australia, iirc), I definitely have no business reading anything regarding voltage then 😅
Thanks for sharing
You only have to define it once in a document, book, whatever. Also, it’s not like you’d ever need to do this for handwritten notes, only for a wider audience, or if you intend for something to be read by not just you.
No one is suggesting you don’t use symbols, just that you define them, and not assume the reader uses the same symbols as you. Which, so often, they don’t. (How many different ones have you come across just in highschool and uni. I came across multiple)
I’m no physicist, but surely there is a huge range of symbols for the same thing, especially the more niche you get.
Lol fair point regarding Eng: “Engineering”.
But Nah, I think assumed knowledge of PV=nRT is fair in context, since if you don’t know what it is, you’ll only be reading the conclusion, not getting into the weeds of a calculation document.
I’m not going even going to be explaining if I have a column that’s says volumetric flow rate, with V=m/ρ. If I give mass flow rate and density (with units, of course), and use these extremely common symbols, and someone doesn’t understand, then they have no real business getting to this level of detail anyway.
I do agree that in most cases not defining your variables is bad practice, but there is some nuance, depending on the intended audience and how common a formula is, and the format of whatever it is you’re writing.
Memes on the internet have taught me angering the swifties is not a good idea