Recent comments in /f/explainlikeimfive

dirschau t1_iydr24o wrote

No, that's not it for two reasons

One, surface of the water usually just plainly doesn't move fast enough for that effect to take place. And the pitch will change regardless of how fast it fills up.

Two, you get the sane effect from any direction, even behind the bottle. And that's completely illogical for Doppler.

It's just plain old resonance.

3

IonizingKoala t1_iydnmvi wrote

The FDA has found that anti-microbial soap is equally as effective as regular soap. But the main anti-microbial ingredients can actually be harmful to the environment, so it's worse if you care about the environment.

It's different in a hospital setting, I think they have some more unique reasons for needing to use anti-microbial soap.

2

fubo t1_iydlhay wrote

One possibility is a minority shareholder lawsuit.

You might own a majority of the company, but the company still has obligations to the other shareholders too. It's still supposed to be working for the profit of all shareholders. If you take a profitable company and turn it into your own personal slush fund, its other shareholders can sue for damages.

2

ialsoagree t1_iydj3qr wrote

You said "that's not true" but then discussed a bunch of stuff I never mentioned. I never mentioned whether or not hydrogen bonding only applies to dissolving substances. I never mentioned water being a liquid at room temperature.

But I will address this:

>they are just two ends of a spectrum representing how little/how much energy you need to break an attraction.

At a physical level I agree with you. But not at a categorical level. These things are categorically distinct when we talk about them because of the size of disparity in energy required.

Let a cup of salt water sit and salt will spontaneously crystallize out of the water within hours. Just through Brownian motion.

Stable molecules could take billions of years to change their structure, or longer. This is why we categorize "water" as it's own molecule, and "salt" as it's own molecule, but we don't categorize "salt water" as a molecule - we categorize it as a solution of 2 molecules.

1

obiwanjacobyx7x t1_iydi4og wrote

1

Sea_no_evil t1_iydi3g8 wrote

Yes. IOW, Goto is a primitive instruction not too far removed from the assembly language -- the native language of the chipset itself. As programming languages get more sophisticated, the need for goto goes away. The fact that most languages still have a goto instruction is really more about history than function.

2

tdscanuck t1_iydi2sf wrote

Read the report you linked to.

Among other things: -Tether promises on that page to publish reserves daily. The last accounting report is Sept 30, 2023 -That report specifically notes two ongoing lawsuits, the outcome of which is not included in the audit results (because they’re still going) -The audit report shows $56B in cash & equivalent reserves against $67B in Tether liabilities…I.e. they’re about $11B short of actually backing their token. The balance is made from bonds & precious metals (probably fine), and outstanding loans (definitely not fine…the recoverability of those loans is unknown). Most believe that those loans are actually to their parent company, which means they’re not real at all, they’re just shell game accounting. That’s what they’re trying to determine in the lawsuits and, so far, Tether has not responded to.

Short version: their own auditor’s report says they don’t have the cash they claim to and the auditors can’t tell, and Tether isn’t saying, where the balance is actually coming from. It’s definitely not cash and it may not exist. If it did, the lawsuits would be over quickly. The fact that they aren’t tells you something.

Edit: I dig into the footnotes.., it looks like they’re double counting the gold they have to back Tether Gold tokens as precious metal reserves for Tether. Which means their precious metal reserve that’s backing Tether also really isn’t…it can back Tether Gold or Tether but not both. So the gap is closer to $11B than the audit report summary makes it seem.

2

Existing-Metal-5211 t1_iydhxaj wrote

Literally because one guy said so and others latched onto it. It's like he never wrote in ML/ASM at the time. Nothing wrong with goto, its not bad. There are bad usages of course. I look at the "goto bad" folks as dumb asses following an unvetted religious assertion, and I'd love to see them program in ML. Their code would be bloated shitware.

What is more important is to document, especially strings, and complex functions. I found an old phreak tool/code hacker I wrote in 1988 on a the scene database. The gotos are not what makes it hard to follow. It's my various string handlers and no documentation of my variables.

Structured programming is a great idea; but not necessary for readable or useful code. Further, this religious bullshit killed many of the 'i program for myself' coders by making simple things more complex. Good programming means understanding the tools you have and implementing them to serve your desired ends. Goto allows for smaller code in certain situations, along with easier to read code in others. As line numbers were replaced with labels (like in qb4.5) readability options also increased.

10 print "i love goto! ";
20 goto 10

or

home
print "i still love goto! ";
goto home

TLDR: some jackass who didn't consider ML said something stupid about spaghetti code and readability and people took it as religious fact.

1