My experience is that you will find many cs and math people among car enthusiasts (At my university almost everyone involved in motorsport is math/science/eng.) From the other side, you will find a smaller proportion due to the wide variety of people who work in tech nowadays.
I don’t think the majority of students who study cs have an obsession any more. It has become such a public and large field that you can hardly expect that to be the case. cs pays more, so it will be more “diluted” (of car enthusiasts) but also an enthusiast of both is more likely to be in cs than eng for the same reason.
In my case, I have always been obsessed with cars and then taught myself cs afterwards.
Yeah, I just opened HN to waste a few seconds and saw this on the front page and my jaw literally dropped. If all my money was invested here I couldn't imagine what I would be thinking. This currency could probably make me bipolar all by itself.
I know this isn't what you meant by car, but I want to take this opportunity to mention that my least favourite thing about my car is the Apple software which runs on it; Apple CarPlay.
I live in London. Apple maps is a disaster. Businesses which have moved shop years ago are in the wrong place. Traffic routes which are congested every day are recommended. It's literally a waste of my life to use this software.
Despite this flaw (and the fact that the head unit is actually useless until your plug in your iPhone), Apple maps is the only navigation software permitted to run on these head units; even though, it is permissible to use Google Maps or Waze when I am walking on the pavement; even though, it is permissible to mount my phone to my car and use an alternative navigation software.
Additionally, on the subject of "wireless grand unification," you can only connect your phone via USB.
> Apple maps is a disaster. Businesses which have moved shop years ago are in the wrong place.
Are people submitting corrections? It's amazing how quickly they respond here in the US, at least where I am. I submit corrections and usually see a notification within a week that it's been addressed.
I haven't tried, but I'm sure they would be quick to address a correction. Unfortunately I don't think the typical car buyer should be smacked with the choice between poor data and the opportunity of volunteering for the upkeep of a product they paid for. Personally I don't think it reflects well on the company. Traffic problem still remains.
You're right, however, CarPlay is already a very recent development. Bluetooth seems like quite a major omission, especially when you consider that it has been an established technology in cars since at least the turn of the millennium.
Thankfully that doesn't bug me so much, because I tend to want to charge my phone when I drive anyway.
It's not a restriction. Apple simply hasn't built out a fully featured third party SDK for CarPlay yet. It's impossible to build a maps app using the currently available third party CarPlay APIs.
Because that's exactly what the argument above does. It simply subtracts away the decimal part of 9.999....
This is always wrong except in the case of infinitely many repeated digits, and the proof does not explain this.
More rigorously, let 9.999{n} denote an expansion with n 9s after the decimal point, where n can also be infinity. The subtlety with the argument is that it needs X to be the same as everything after the decimal point (so that the result of the subtraction is just 9). This is never true for finite values of n, and the proof does not establish that it's true for an infinite value of n -- indeed, it can't do so without supplying a meaning in the first place.
Another way of phrasing it is that it assumes that if X = 0.999..., then 10X = 9.999..., where there are the "same number" of 9s after the decimal point in 10X as there are in X. This seems intuitive for an infinite repeating sequence of 9s, because "one less than infinity" is still infinity, but it's not very rigorous, and the argument as written certainly doesn't explain this.
Okay, this is a little late but when you say 10X = 9.999... then X = 0.999... not because you have removed the 9 but because that's what X is; a tenth of 10X! So when you say in your argument 10X = 9.9 and therefore 10X - X = 9.9 - 0.9, that's wrong. 10X = 9.9 implies X = 0.99. No wiggle room. No need to consider infinites, just one movement of a decimal point.
[And hence 10X - X = 9.9 - 0.99 = 8.91 = 9X implying that X = 0.99]
Following, as delineated above, from there, you'll see there's no contradiction. It's not so easy to break arithmetic that easily without dividing by zero :)
Yeah, yes and no. The premise is, that 0.9999... repeating CAN be represented as a decimal number, so that means it CAN be used in arithmetic. If we deny that 0.999... minus 0.999... is zero, then the premise is broken and the question is kind of moot.
I love this idea. Imagine you have a bunch of emails and a bunch of contacts that you'd like to preserve. You're using Gmail and for some reason they've put a bad taste in your mouth. If Gmail were built upon these open foundations then you could simply download your solid archive, and hand it to someone else to take care of.
Regarding the complaints about trust; that should be the realm of litigation. We put trust in our licencing of source code. Your data should be licenced in a similar fashion, and if the handler of your data fails to comply then they shouldn't be allowed to operate.
Fair point, it's not "the open web" or whatever. But they do, practically speaking, do everything you need-- and it speaks to other comments about whether "the open web" is really offering something people want. (I certainly do expect any service I'm likely to use to import .vcf or .mbox files without much grief.)
More than just for fun. In a global society so encapsulated by money people are always going to tend toward the path of least resistance to maximise that goal. In many cases, despite the moral factors, risk, etc; this is going to be crime. It seems to simply be human/animal nature and something which society itself won't easily be able to change.
With the amount of easily consumable and manipulative propaganda going around it's quite easy to make a misguided vote without realising the implications. It's not like voting to leave takes much effort.
I don’t think the majority of students who study cs have an obsession any more. It has become such a public and large field that you can hardly expect that to be the case. cs pays more, so it will be more “diluted” (of car enthusiasts) but also an enthusiast of both is more likely to be in cs than eng for the same reason.
In my case, I have always been obsessed with cars and then taught myself cs afterwards.