pixelscript

yuyuko deka fumo

What is "holiday" on this list for?

Rinse aid is what we call a surfactant. It disrupts the surface tension of water, which in turn lessens its ability to cling to surfaces.

You know how when you get a smooth surface of glass or plastic wet, there will be a lot of beads of water that just cling there and don't go anywhere? Unless they grow big enough to start finally running down the side? That's surface tension in action. Adding the rinse aid will reduce water's ability to bead up like this on dishes. Instead, water will be more likely to run down the surface in unbroken sheets instead of beading up.

The primary intent is that more water will simply drip off the dishes due to gravity. This does make dishes come out dryer after a drying cycle, and/or decreases the time the drying cycle takes or the energy it requires to get the same effect. But the main reason wanting water to drip off of dishes is to prevent limescale on them.

When water evaporates, only the water disappears into the air. Anything that was dissolved in that water gets left behind. If your water is hard, that will mean there's a bunch of calcites that will stay behind as a whitish powder called limescale. So if you wash dishes with hard water, let the rinse water stay beaded up on them, and dry it out via only evaporation, you get some limescale buildup on them in the form of so-called "water spots".

If instead you add rinse aid, more of the water will drip off the dishes, taking all the dissolved calcites with it. Less water has to evaporate, fewer calcites are left behind on the dishes, so less limescale and fewer water spots. Thus why many brands of the stuff show photos of crystal-clear glass on the box. A water-spotted glass will be cloudy and speckled. Rinse-aided glass will--supposedly, anyway--be clearer.

I imagine telling an Arch user you use Gentoo is like telling a Texan that if you cut Alaska into two halves Texas would be the third largest US state.

Toy Story 4 didn't really wrap anything up, in my opinion. It feels like its own detatched thing.

I say it's still a decently good film, it definitely didn't "ruin" anything by existing like so many sequel-queasy people like to screech. Woody had an arc that developed him in a direction that felt natural for the character and I was pleased by Bo Peep's return.

But the themes explored in this film definitely don't feel core to the overarching narrative the original trio had. The toys' relationship to Andy was the point. The passing of the torch to the new kid was the bookend. Yes, playing with the question of how toys come to life in the Toy Story universe is neat and all, and I think they handled that tastefully. But that didn't seem like a question that really needed a spotlight on it.

Every narrative issue explored in Toy Story 4 felt like a solution looking for a problem. The hallmark of a phoned-in story. It was phoned in quite well, all things considered, but it was still phoned-in.

Oh, I expect they well may, in Wreck-It Ralph 2 fashion. They might make it the target of a quick tongue-in-cheek remark at its own expense, but its mere appearance will nonetheless be an ad for the brand.

I'm fuzzy on the deeper details. I think you can do something like this, but you have to be very careful, in ways where you don't have to be so careful with ✓-1.

One of the more obvious ways to consider: plot a graph of y = 1 / x. Note how as x approaches zero from the right, the graph shoots up, asymptotically approaching the y-axis and shooting up to infinity. It's very tempting to say that 1 / 0 is "infinity". "Infinity" is not a real number, but nothing is stopping you from defining a new kind of number to represent this singularity if you want to. But at that point you have left the real numbers. Which is fine, right? Complex numbers aren't real numbers either, after all...

But look at the left side of the graph. You have the same behavior, but the graph shoots down, not up. It suggests that the limit of approaching from the left is "negative infinity". Quite literally the furthest possible imaginable thing from the "infinity" we had to define for the right side. But this is supposed to be the same value, at x = 0. Just by approaching it from different directions, we don't just get two different answers, we get perhaps the most different answers possible.

I think it's not hard to intuit a handwavey answer that this simply represents the curve of y = 1 / x "wrapping around through infinity" or some notion like that. Sure, perhaps that is what's going on. But dancing around a singularity like that mathematically isn't simple. The very nature of mathematical singularities is to give you nonsensical results. Generally, having them at all tends to be a sign that you have the wrong model for something.

You can mostly avoid this problem by snipping off the entire left half of the x-axis. Shrink your input domain to only non-negative numbers. Then, I believe, you can just slap "infinity" on it and run with it and be mostly fine. But that's a condition you have to be upfront about. This becomes a special case solution, not a generalized one.

I haven't looked into it, but I believe this singularity gets even more unweildy if you try to extend it to complex numbers. All the while, complex numbers "just work". You don't need doctor's gloves to handle them. √-1 isn't a mathematical singularity, it's a thing with an answer, the answer just isn't a real number.

This is a question I see from time to time, and it's a good question to ask.

Your question as I understand it can be phrased another way as:

The square root of -1 has no defined answer. So we put a mask on it and pretend that's the answer. We do math with the masked number and suddenly everything is fine now. Why can't we do the same thing to division by zero?

The difference is that, if you try to put a funny mask on the square root of -1 and treat it like a number, nothing breaks, but if you try the same thing with a division by zero, all sorts of things break.

If you define i = √-1, that is the only thing i can ever be. That specific quantity. You can factor it out of stuff, raise it to that exponent, whatever. And if it is ever convenient to do so, you can always unmask it back into that thing, e.g. i^2 = (√-1)^2 = -1. All the while, all the already existing rules of math stay true.

A division by zero isn't like this, because if you tried it, every number divided by zero would equal to the same thing. If we give it a name, say, 1 / 0 = z, then it would also be true that 2 / 0 = z. We could then solve both sides for zero:

1 / z = 0

2 / z = 0

then set them equal:

1 / z = 2 / z

then multiply both sides by z:

1 = 2

which is a contradiction.

i doesn't have this problem.

Reminds me when Pokemon Go was the hot shit that got everybody outside and walking to play it

It felt like a true callback to 90s Pokemania... but only 90s Pokemania. PoGo at the time only had the original 151 in it, and it seemed all anyone had connecting them to the property was hazy nostalgic memories of Ash and Pikachu walking through the Kanto region on the TV twenty years ago.

Meanwhile I, with my 3DS and copy of Pokemon Omega Ruby in hand, far more fascinated with facets of this franchise that had happened long since that gilded age, didn't really have anything new to connect over with anyone. And then the fad died and everyone stopped caring again. :/

remilia :)

koishi :)

Sanae :)