this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2025
431 points (96.9% liked)

Lifehacks

206 readers
465 users here now

Efficiency in all walks of life.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

I’m never going to visit the US or UK anyway.

[–] gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (2 children)

Ah yes, I always remember the Fibonacci sequence and totally wouldn't find it harder to calculate than just doing the conversion the regular way

/sarcasm

[–] Dumhuvud@programming.dev 5 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

"Remember"? Do you also remember all the digits of π?

It's defined as F(0) = 0, F(1) = 1 and F(n) = F(n - 1) + F(n - 2). Which makes more sense than imperial units.

[–] gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Or I could just do 1.6 km ≈ 1 mile whenever I need to convert from the standard that I use, Metric, to Imperial

Far far far simpler

Edit: I'm not American, I use sensible units, SI Metric

Edit edit: I do fully have dyscalcus, mostly only effects "scary" looking maths, so no, your suggestion doesn't help

[–] Gloomy@mander.xyz 4 points 3 hours ago

But woudn't you only need the 3 = 5 part?

[–] 33550336@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

my upvote made 420 upvotes, coincidence?

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 6 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

isnt it easier to give them simple conversions 1mi=0.6km.

[–] SacralPlexus@lemmy.world 6 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Might want to check your units.

[–] gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

It's rough estimation, a deviation of anything less than 50% is accurate enough for that

Edit: Ooh I thought you were trying to "um actually, it's 1.66", but I just realised they put 0.6 instead of 1.6

[–] pupbiru@aussie.zone 4 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

or for in your head maths: half + 10%

(though it’s 1km=0.6mi, 1mi=1.6km)

[–] ExperimentalGuy@programming.dev 18 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

This is such a cool example of how some recursive algorithms have a closed form. We all know that there's a simple equation to plug miles into to get kilometers, but we don't talk about how the Fibonacci sequence has a closed form. This is so cool.

[–] angrystego@lemmy.world 6 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Wjat does closed form mean? Asking as a stupid botanist, sorry.

[–] WolfLink@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Closed form means it can be written out as a specific, finite set of instructions that work the same regardless of what the input to your function is.

For Fibonacci, it is most commonly defined in its recursive form:

f(0) = 0
f(1) = 1
f(x) = f(x-1) + f(x-2) for integer x > 1

But using this form, computing a very large Fibonacci number requires computing all the numbers before it, so it’s not the same finite set of instructions for every number, it takes more computation to generate larger numbers.

However, there is a closed form formula for generating Fibonacci numbers. Using this formula, you can directly compute any large Fibonacci number without having to compute all those intermediate steps. It takes the same amount of work to compute any Fibonacci number.

f(x) = (a^x - b^x)/√5
a = (1+√5)/2
b = (1-√5)/2

(Note that a and b here are constants; I only wrote them separately to avoid a mess of nested parenthesis)

For an example of something that doesn’t have a closed form, we do not know of a closed form for generating prime numbers. There are several known algorithms for generating the nth prime number, but they all depend on computing all the previous prime numbers, making it very difficult to compute very large prime numbers (in fact, how generating large primes is actually done is by making an educated guess and then checking that it’s actually prime). Discovering a closed form formula for prime numbers would have a huge impact on mathematics and cryptography.

[–] gnawmon@ttrpg.network 29 points 20 hours ago (3 children)
[–] gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 3 hours ago

0.54 nmi (nautical miles)

[–] Landless2029@lemmy.world 10 points 16 hours ago

And yet the military uses "clicks"

[–] PhAzE@lemmy.ca 10 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

Just gotta ask any of the 90% of the world who use it to find out. Americans hate this one simple trick!

[–] gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Fun fact: there's quite a lot of countries that use "mixed metrics", with no real rhyme or reason for what uses old ancient imperial and what uses new shiny metric

UK - Miles for long distances, switch to meters for distances less than a mile, always use km in air and sea. Milk in pints, petrol in liters, water in ml, beer in pints. Human heights in Feet Inches, building heights in Meters. Human weights in a unit even Americans don't use anymore (Stone), animal weights in kg/g.

[–] yeather@lemmy.ca 4 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (1 children)

Yeah, but does the kilometer have a cool origin like the mile? Checkmate math nerd.

[–] PhAzE@lemmy.ca 9 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

I'd say it kind of does actually:

The Kilometer is defined as one ten-millionth of the distance from the Earth's North Pole to the equator along the meridian passing through Paris.

Vs

The mile originated with the Roman measurement of mille passus, meaning "one thousand paces," with a pace being five Roman feet. The modern 5,280-foot statute mile evolved in England, where the 1592 parliamentary act defined the mile as eight furlongs (660 feet each) to standardize the distance.

One is measured by earth, the other by stinky feet.

[–] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 4 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

Yeah but earth is wobbly and imprecise so now we define the meter as "the distance light travels in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458th of a second"

[–] angrystego@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago

That'a a cool definition. I wouldn't call it an origin though, that would still be the Earth measurement through Paris, which is also cool.

[–] groet@feddit.org 2 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

one ten-millionth of the distance from the Earth's North Pole to the equator

On ten-thousandth. The circumference through the poles is ~40,000km

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago

over land or straight line?

[–] lauha@lemmy.world 146 points 1 day ago (2 children)

This is because fibonacci numbers approach golden ratio which is approximately 1,618033... and one mile is 1,609344 kilometres exactly.

[–] 0_0j@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago
[–] Oisteink@lemmy.world 25 points 1 day ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TheBat@lemmy.world 92 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)
[–] altkey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)
H A T E S P E E C H
🚨🚨 A L E R T 🚨🚨
[–] atro_city@fedia.io 36 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Nah, that's too difficult for USAians. They can memorize fibonacci numbers much more easily.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 hours ago

To be fair, kilometers make a lot more sense to me, as an American. However, everything is written in miles, and everyone speaks in miles. Estimating distance for me is easier in metric, but it isn't really acceptable.

(I play milsims, which is why I'm more used to it. Most Americans have almost zero experience with metric.)

[–] WALLACE@feddit.uk 16 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Be like us Brits and measure short distances in metric, long distances in Imperial, yet struggle to convert between them.

GPS navigation gets frustrating. It's either metric "turn left in 4km" when all road signs and speeds are in miles, or imperial "turn in 200ft" when you have no idea how long 200ft is.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Yeah, people talk shit about Americans using Imperial, but Brits are so fucked up. At least we consistently use one shitty system. Brits are constantly switching between the two, and sometimes even using outdated systems no one else uses. Like, why the fuck do you use stones for body weight, but pounds, ounces, and grams for different measurements of weight? Be consistent at least.

[–] ITGuyLevi@programming.dev 5 points 21 hours ago (3 children)

I never understood the use of yards for exits over there, but the hardest part was figuring out what my GP meant when he said I needed to lose a couple 'stones'... C'mon, you can't expect me to learn imperial, metric, and whatever the hell that is.

I'm already stuck having to be able to convert between elephants and F-250's because my homeland REFUSES the metric system, now I have to study geology just to figure out how unhealthy I am (actually was, I've lost 40lbs since then).

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Aeao@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago (5 children)

Hey I’m going to have to ask you to censor that word. There’s American children on this ap! We can’t have them going to the playground and repeating that kind of language.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] ramble81@lemmy.zip 13 points 21 hours ago (5 children)

To go from km to mi I always leaned “multiply by 6 and move the decimal one to the left”. So 6km is ~3.6mi. Or 10km is just about 6mi.

[–] 0_0j@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

Thank you, will definitely use this now on

[–] Scavenger8294@feddit.org 1 points 6 hours ago

glad I did not learn conversion in school. Nobody uses miles where i live

[–] pupbiru@aussie.zone 1 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

or add half and then 10% (because it’s 1.6km to the mile): easier than multiplying decimals or large numbers by 6, and the inverse is 0.6mi=1km so easy to remember both ways (same thing but don’t “add” just start from 0)

[–] davidagain@lemmy.world 7 points 21 hours ago

Yes. That uses the 3:5 ratio.

[–] untorquer@lemmy.world 1 points 15 hours ago

I used to remember because space (Karman line) is 100km or 62mi up. I guess it helps to be a space nerd for that one. Kind of just figure 1.6 going the other way.

[–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 3 points 19 hours ago
load more comments
view more: next ›