this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2025
512 points (97.2% liked)

Lifehacks

230 readers
1 users here now

Efficiency in all walks of life.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] lauha@lemmy.world 165 points 2 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] Oisteink@lemmy.world 28 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] lauha@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TheBat@lemmy.world 98 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)
[–] atro_city@fedia.io 42 points 2 months ago (3 children)

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

[–] WALLACE@feddit.uk 17 points 2 months 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.

[–] ITGuyLevi@programming.dev 5 points 2 months ago (2 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).

[–] davidagain@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Stones are imperial. There are 14 pounds in a stone. Obviously it's the right unit for people's weight because who wouldn't want to share the weight of a human equally seven ways, eh?

[–] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago

"I'm trying to lose 2 and a half stone" just sounds utterly deranged.

[–] brotundspiele@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

My kidney stones are imperial too.

There are 14 pounds in a stone.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] fibojoly@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

The idea the average Joe even knows of them... (edit: was thinking of Fibonacci, but even km are in doubt these days)

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Aeao@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months 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)
[–] altkey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)
H A T E S P E E C H
🚨🚨 A L E R T 🚨🚨
[–] gnawmon@ttrpg.network 30 points 2 months ago (3 children)
[–] PhAzE@lemmy.ca 14 points 2 months ago (1 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 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (5 children)

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.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Landless2029@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago

And yet the military uses "clicks"

[–] gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 months ago

0.54 nmi (nautical miles)

[–] ExperimentalGuy@programming.dev 21 points 2 months 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 2 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] WolfLink@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ramble81@lemmy.zip 13 points 2 months ago (6 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.

[–] davidagain@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

Yes. That uses the 3:5 ratio.

[–] pupbiru@aussie.zone 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months 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)

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Interesting, but if I have to look up a conversion I’ll just look up the actual conversion rather than an approximation.

[–] Hufschmid@sopuli.xyz 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Why have brain when have computer

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

thanks to "AI" being in everything more and more computers are starting to perform worse than brain

[–] CompassRed@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 2 months ago

The point is you don't have to look it up. Fibonacci is really easy to compute in your head.

[–] Huschke@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago

I always used "a little more than half".

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

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

[–] SacralPlexus@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Might want to check your units.

[–] gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months 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 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

or for in your head maths: half + 10%

(though it’s 1km=0.6mi, 1mi=1.6km)

[–] Sir_Premiumhengst@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

Works because ratio of km to miles is about the golden ratio.

[–] gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months 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

[–] Gloomy@mander.xyz 5 points 2 months ago

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

[–] Dumhuvud@programming.dev 4 points 2 months ago (2 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 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

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

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I know from running that 5k is 3.1miles so I just go from there

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] GaMEChld@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago
[–] RickyRigatoni@retrolemmy.com 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That's the spirit.

Give it the ol college "why?"

[–] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Cool! I wish I would have known this in the 70's when Canada changed over from British Imperial units to the Metric system. Maybe this is the incentive needed to push the usa into the rest of the metric system world!

[–] Mycatiskai@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 months ago

If every measurement being a factor of ten of a smaller or bigger unit isn't going to convince Americans of the ease of metric then the Fibonacci sequence isn't going to convince them.

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 months ago

5 to 8 is the far simpler pretty exact conversion.

[–] SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (4 children)

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

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›