I think this is more accurately vice signalling.

Hah. Church tried to ban it because it was "associated with illegal money trading", I remember that. What is it about maths that makes non-mathematicians think themselves qualified to judge matters they don't understand?

I think I almost understand what you're getting at. If I do, it's uncodifiable. You can't draft an organisational system with a clause that no one is allowed to use logical fallacies to defend it.

Right, and the most significant bit of the whole date is the first Y in YYYY, which we can't put at the end unless we reverse the year itself. So we can either have pure big-endian, or PDP-endian. I know which one I'm picking.

Your literal statement is also just wrong. The solitary implication of endianness is byte ordering, because individual bits in a byte have no ordering in memory. Every single one has the exact same address; they have significance order, but that's entirely orthogonal to memory. Hex readouts order nybbles on the same axis as memory so as not to require 256 visually distinct digits and because they only have two axes; that's a visual artefact, and reflects nothing about the state of memory itself. ISO 8601 on the other hand is a visual representation, so digit and field ordering are in fact the same axis.

Whoa there. I detest this post as much as you do, but there's no need to start throwing out baseless accusations. @Summzashi@lemmy.one isn't funny at all.

If I'm not meant to think about it until understanding emerges, then that means it should be immediately understandable without thinking. It is not.

I think it is not. Certainly most projects aren't solely personal utilities, but devs working for fun rather than profit will almost inevitably produce something skewed towards their own tastes and skills. See: the presentation of any FOSS graphical app vs a paid equivalent.

That's a pretty weak definition. "Legitimate" especially is a vacuous term, and every form of democracy ever proposed is (theoretically) "accountable".

They really need to patch this. It's wreaked unbridled havoc on the meta.

The Hamiltonian using Hamilton's numbers? Now I think about it it is a bit silly that two entirely separate yet highly propinquitous concepts have such similar names. Physics really went downhill once humans started writing it down.

I know this is a joke, but wrong about what, exactly? I don't get it.

Also, and maybe this has something to do with the joke I'm not getting, the way complex numbers are motivated in school is a lie, and a stupid one. Mathematicians were perfectly comfortable with certain equations having no solutions; the problem was when their equations told them there were no solutions when they could see the solutions: the curve x^3^ - 15x + 4 crosses the x-axis, but Cardano's cubic formula gives up due to negative square roots. Imaginary numbers were originally no more than an ephemeral reasoning tool, and were only reluctantly accepted as entities in their own right because of how damn useful they were.

Quaternions are not the basis for quantum mechanics. Biquaternions have some applications in quantum field theory, but there are many areas of quantum mechanics where there's no need or space for anything above complex.