|
Value Over Replacement Engine (VORE) eats other metrics alive.
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 04:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 02:56 |
|
|
Rods to the hogshead or nothing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 06:27
|
|
|
Parsecs per Kessel Run. I'll show myself out
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 06:42
|
|
|
Wolfram|Alpha reminds me that one joule = one newton across a distance of one metre , so joules per metre = newtons We should be measuring fuel economy in units of force. 1 litre∕100 km = 320.5 N In the steady state, you could imagine this as the sum of all the retarding forces on the vehicle (air drag, rolling resistance, transmission losses, &c.), or, equivalently, the force the engine must produce to counteract them. For you U.S. customary fans, 30 MPG = 565 pounds of force. Platystemon has a new favorite as of 07:07 on Sep 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 06:55
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Wolfram|Alpha reminds me that one joule = one newton across a distance of one metre , so joules per metre = newtons We already have Torque / second not equaling the power of the car, let's not make it worse.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 07:05
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:We should be measuring fuel economy in units of force. Fuel economy also works out to an area measurement, of all things. It sounds crazy until you think about it, but say you took the gas you burned on a trip and stretched it out into a tube that's the length of that trip. What's the cross-section of that tube? A gas-guzzler would need a thicker tube than an economy car, right? It turns out 20 miles per gallon equals a cross-section of 0.1 square millimeters. https://what-if.xkcd.com/11/
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 07:14
|
|
|
At work we have a web design job for a tutoring service whose current site features this gem: According to their site it shows how a child improves with tuition - but, well...  We may "forget" to include it in their next redesign.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 10:45
|
|
|
Here in the UK we still use mpg to measure fuel efficiency even though we've bought petrol by the litre for the last 30 years. Hmm sure is useful to know I've got 20 litres of fuel left and my car does 53mpg
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 13:57
|
|
|
bitterandtwisted posted:Here in the UK we still use mpg to measure fuel efficiency even though we've bought petrol by the litre for the last 30 years. Try and find anything that give you the useful litres/mile and you might as well be looking for a unicorn.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
spog posted:Try and find anything that give you the useful litres/mile and you might as well be looking for a unicorn. I heard that unicorns have good mileage but aren't really suitable for city driving, c/d?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
spongepuppy posted:At work we have a web design job for a tutoring service whose current site features this gem: I feel like including a graph this stupid in a website for a tutoring service would actually serve to drive people away from said service. I mean if they don't know how graphs work how would anyone expect them to teach kids how to do it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Wolfram|Alpha reminds me that one joule = one newton across a distance of one metre , so joules per metre = newtons Now I want to know the specific impulse of my car, even though it's not a sensible measure at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 16:45
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:I heard that unicorns have good mileage but aren't really suitable for city driving, c/d? The Cheshire Cat posted:I feel like including a graph this stupid in a website for a tutoring service would actually serve to drive people away from said service. I mean if they don't know how graphs work how would anyone expect them to teach kids how to do it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:d. they're actually pretty good in stop and go traffic thanks to the start-stop functionality. It's actually on the highway where their lack of overdrive becomes an issue. Just don't get frustrated at the other drivers, you really don't want to lean on the horn too hard.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:Just don't get frustrated at the other drivers, you really don't want to lean on the horn too hard. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:I feel like including a graph this stupid in a website for a tutoring service would actually serve to drive people away from said service. I mean if they don't know how graphs work how would anyone expect them to teach kids how to do it? Based on the site's content their target audience isn't educated parents, sadly. I think the only ethical solution is accidental omission.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 10:00
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:I feel like including a graph this stupid in a website for a tutoring service would actually serve to drive people away from said service. I mean if they don't know how graphs work how would anyone expect them to teach kids how to do it? But it only goes up uP UPup uP UP! That can only be good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 11:31
|
|
|
Fathis Munk posted:But it only goes up uP UPup uP UP! That can only be good. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
This was explicitly intended as a joke. Where did you get this? Did you do puzzle safari?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
Nebrilos posted:This was explicitly intended as a joke. Maybe, but now it's taught in business schools.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
Nebrilos posted:This was explicitly intended as a joke. Where did you get this? Did you do puzzle safari? I realize it's a joke, it's from Silicon Valley. It was in response to the 'up up up!' comment which I quoted right there at the top of my post.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
NoEyedSquareGuy posted:Maybe, but now it's taught in business schools. You can't make this stuff up!
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
I do I hella
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
Snapchat A Titty posted:I do I You (the person I am addressing) "do you" (be yourself).
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 03:46
|
|
|
Pakled posted:Rods to the hogshead or nothing. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 04:07
|
|
|
Not awful as such, but  at Virginia's huge swollen blue balls.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 14:58
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
Is this real? It's even dumber than those old Fox News charts where the percentages don't even add up to 100%.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
Reminds me of a weather chart in an old MAD magazine that listed rain, wind, hail, tornado and plague.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
Forgall posted:Not awful as such, but Lol at Buchanan County. Named after the worst of the presidents, steadfastly voting for the worst - of two - parties.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
Cool, so the real danger is wind. Rain surge and tornado can be dismissed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
Turn the graph 90 degrees clockwise and it becomes Graphy the Cool Graph For Cool Kids from the 90s (He's here to teach you about the margin of error in a fun and hip way!)
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 08:02
|
|
|
 Pretty tame by Fox News standards, but I'm amused that the evangelicals add up to 109%.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 03:42
|
|
|
Ugh that's like rule number one when you make up numbers to prove your point, always add them up. I am fascinated by the reckless abandon and ineptitude Fox displays with all their bullshit propaganda.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 15:02
|
|
|
Powered Descent posted:
Remember folks, this is the news media described as "too liberal" by Trump supporters.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 15:19
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
Powered Descent posted:
I was going to say, could be due to rounding, but it's 109%.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
trapped mouse posted:Remember folks, this is the news media described as "too liberal" by Trump supporters. Of course. A truly conservative news source would have over 109% under "strongly unfavorable" alone!
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 02:56 |
|
|
This is a great diagram of how my exgirlfriend acheived orgasm. just kidding, she always faked it
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 18:30
|
|
