JohnAnthony

No, because I can picture 1 (dollar, apple, person, whatever) and 1000, and it's very obvious that one is a rounding error compared to the other, a difference of 0.1%.

It's just that I can't picture a million apples, much less a billion or a trillion. Hence why I usually turn to time, or distance.

Here's another : if a million is a kilometre, a billion is 1000km and a trillion is the distance to the moon and back.

Which is insane. When the numbers become too large, they just stop making sense intuitively.

I had a nice comparison to put a billion into perspective : a million seconds is 11 days, a billion seconds is over 30 years. We understand these two durations reasonably well, and the difference can be "felt" clearly.

A trillion seconds is 30000 years... and again, the numbers stop making sense. That would be the Upper Palaeolithic. Agriculture was invented 10000 years ago. Hmm, what else ? Right, sorry, I rounded down. It would actually be 31688 years. A little slip-up of 1700 years, no biggie. The difference between today and the antiquity.

At this point the victim is also the perpetrator

Having to wait a couple weeks for the sky to be blue matches my experience of Bavaria.

Jokes aside, great picture !

I don't know if I would...

For obvious reasons, I could never forgive myself if I promptly got to watch 200 people get butchered by a trolley immune to the laws of physics.

But even if these fairly comfortable 99% odds turned out in my favor... During the years of mental health counselling following my abduction and forced participation in twisted ethics games, I would have to listen to people telling me I saved someone and did the right thing, while knowing that I objectively did not. That I put two times more lives at risk than by not pulling the lever.

If you have 10 000 train tracks, but at the end of one of them is a nuke blowing up a city of 10 million people, do you pull the damned lever ? I sure don't.

You are counting your saved person twice, once as a 100% save and again when you consider a net count of 4.

You have a 75% chance of saving 1 person, and 25% of killing 4, which means you are still killing 0.25*4 - 0.75*1 = 0.25 people.

Now the logic of "only 25% of bad outcome" is the real gambler's fallacy here. How far would you push it ? Would you pull the lever if it was a 20% chance of killing 10 ? A 10% chance of killing 50 ?

At some number people seem to go "what are the odds it happens to ME" and happily pull a lever even if the consequences outweigh the odds.

Design choices in this area involve balancing performance, usability, and security

Nothing to do with usability since decrypting your passwords one by one is perfectly fine. So they are saying this is about performance ? Holy fuck...

My hair quality became noticeably better when I started using SOLID shampoo. DRY shampoo, if you will

I tried telling this to my manager for years. He saw it as a "X days since we last had a problem and needed to reboot the server" and took pride in it.

We finally shut it down at over 5 years of uptime. Some docker containers had been running for 4 years straight.

Yes, that means what you think it does concerning update policies. Yes, the server and some containers were exposed to the internet. No, the backups were never tested.

Beginner mistake, which is perfectly fine! Just use i-1 inside the loop and i <= values.Length as the condition.

It should, as long as you don't try to abbreviate it as tar -h though... the short form is tar -? which illustrates the joke nicely

My main gripe with the expansion is that trains scale way worse than everything else and become close to useless if you go to legendary quality. And I say this playing train world...