🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@Pat Actually sorry a bit sleep deprived and someone pointed out an important fact.. This only applies to a sequence where the relative percentage refers to the total accumulated at each check point, not independent events and not percentages relative to a fixed absolute.. so in fact for relative humidity the plain way would work.

@digital_carver Sorry i should have been more clear, and thanks for pointing this out. I should have specifically said when taking the average of a sequence, not parallel events.

If every day for 10 days I had half the days where I lost 50% and half the days where I doubled my money, 200%, taking the plain average to find out the average you made per day gives you the wrong answer, you'd have to do it the way I described. In the example you gave (which is not a sequence) then doing it the plain way works just fine

@Pat Most people have, another common mistake is you cant extend percentages across time by multiplying.. for example "I made 5% in one day, if i can do this every day for 10 days then I can make 50% in a week!

you would have to instead take the power: 1.05^10 = 1.628, so in face if you make 5% a day then if you do that every day over 10 days you would make 62.8%

@academicalnerd You may want to consider adding QOTOJournal to posts like this in the future.

@Pat yes it would apply in those cases as well.

@sheetposter

You dont even need to log out, just go to the server directly rather than viewing it through your local account client.. literally just need to go to their feed directly. I do it all the time and its more of an annoyance than any sort of security

@r000t @Gargron @QOTO @Sphinx @arteteco @khird

@Pat Depends on why it is constrained in that way.. does it truely represent situations where the final value has always decreased? then if so, yes..

## Math Tip for Coders:

Remember when averaging percentages, unlike plain values,no matter if its a simple mean, a moving average, or a exponential moving average, you always want to use the repeated operator on percentages compared to the one you would use on plain values. I know thats confusing and really only makes sense with an example.

So each of the following operators is the repeated form of the prior: +, *,^ (exponent)

Similarly the following: -, / , roots (like square root)

So for a simple mean with plain values you would average three values by doing:

(a + b + c)/3

However if your doing that for percentages that formula doesnt work instead you do:

(a * b * c) ^ (1/3)

Remember taking something to the power of 1/3 is the same as taking the third root.

Also keep in mind the variables here must be percentages such that they are anywhere from 0 to infinity. If you invested in something and you made no money and lost no money it would be 1, for 100%, if you lost all your money its 0, if you lost half its 0.5 (50%), if you doubled your money its 2.0 (200%) and so on

So if you inveted in three different things, and each time you doubled your money, and you wanted to know what your average percentage of return on investment was you would do: (2 * 2 * 2) ^ (1/3) and that would give you your mean, 2.. If you treated it like normal values and added then divided while it would work in this case it would give you **significantly** incorrect values in other cases.

As I stated this holds true for more complex types of averages too, take exponential moving average as an example. For plain values with EMA you apply each new value to just the previous EMA (and dont need to worry about combining all the values at once).. So if you flipped a coin 100 times and and took the EMA of the first 99 and now want to know know the EMA after the 100th flip (1 being heads and 0 being tails) you do:

(last_value * (1 - alpha) + current_value * alpha)

that gives you your current EMA where alpha is any number from 0 to 1... now to apply that to percentages again you take each operator and make it the next one up so for percentages it is actually:

(last_percentage^(1-alpha) * current_percentage^alpha)

#math #programming #mathematics #coding #code

"Look at all these screenshots I took of this person harassing me after I obviously blocked them and cant receive their messages"

I think I sprained a muscle rolling my eyes on that one.

@snow

@AusOcean

No problem, I look forward to seeing how your organization develops and i think its a great effort you have going!

@arteteco @Sphinx @khird

@AusOcean Hi, moderator here, welcome to the server.

Generally we dont tend to permit many types of organizations or for-profit accounts here such as those that advertise, but it appears in your case you probably fit the type of organization we both allow and encourage here. So on that note let me welcome you to the server and hope you enjoy your time here.

I do however want to make a few points before you get too established just to make sure we are the right place for you to host your account.

1) You must be non-profit, and you fit that criteria, so great

2) while your more than welcome to post about new developments and things you feel are relevant to the STEM community that follows you there is a fine line between that and SPAM. Please try to make sure your posts are not just low-effort advertisements but have real content people can discuss or consider

3) There is an expectation that your posts are not cross posts, automated, or one-way. That means a real human is writing these, posting them, and actively reading comments and responding to the community. If your simply cross posting from a blog or twitter and not actively being part of the community by at least being responsive and active on your own posts, that isnt acceptable.

@arteteco @Sphinx @khird

@khird

as for the blocking mods issue, all I know is when i blocked nikon just recently I could not see their post directly when i went to their profile and could only see it when i searched for it through the domain interfact. That combined with the fact that it was their only post seemed worth of a block and ultimately why the blocking of moderators seemed to be part of the problem.

Michelle account had already been blocked, as you said, so i could not confirm if they too had blocked me or not. I do know at the time when I agreed with your decision I was looking at it through the admin interface as well and didnt think to even check if i was personally blocked at the time.

@QOTO @Gargron @arteteco @Sphinx

@khird

the ip blocks are **not** on the user ips themselves, and i agree we do not generally engage in IP blocks and certainly wouldnt do so on Tor intentionally.

The IP blocks you are seeing were because when i blocked the email domains (which were coming from 10minutemail but obscured) i told it to also block the ips associated with the MX entries for that email. so its actually ip blocks for the email side. If those wind up blocking the ability to use the site from Tor more generally then I would agree on rolling back the IP blocks.

@QOTO @Gargron @arteteco @Sphinx

@timorl @2ck

> So an angry mob walking towards people they just chanted about killing should have been… what?

Now you are just making stuff up. At **no** point did the entire group start chanting to kill anyone.. jesus christ man at least stick to actual facts.

> getting inside the building required violence (as in the video I posted earlier, which is different from the policeman chasing video)

I saw a bunch of people pushing forward to get into the building, some people (includding the protestors) did get pinned while the crowd pushed through (as often tends to happen). But where do you see in the **initial** efforts to get into the building anyone in that crowd actually physically punching or hurting anyone. The closest I saw to anything that came close to that was an explicitly non-violent (though inappropriate) use of some pepper spray, which mind you was already being used against them along with being beaten by sticks.

In fact in the **full** video of them pushing into the building you already see the **first** violence is **not** from the protestors at all but from the cops. You can clearly see in the full length video that **before** any pepper spray was used (the only near-violent act) the policy were reaching over the barricade and beating the crowd repeatedly and as hard as they could with their baton. Not **that** is actual physical violence, much more so than **responding** to that with pepper spray. Beyond that the only "violence" your talking about is the people pushing through when trying to be blocked.

> Then that woman was crawling through a barricaded door, with a mob behind her, after chanting for death of the people behind the door. I find it very hard to call shooting her “murder”,

An unarmed woman who gave no indication of being armed breaking a window getting shot to death is murder, period... Unless someone has a weapon, especially when they have not thrown a single punch, shooting them dead is murder, there is no exception to this, period.

> I hope an investigation helps explain why it wasn’t, but at the point where there were few policemen against an angry uncontrolled mob what do you think should have hppened?

So what should happen when there is a small number of police up against an unarmed group of people trying to walk into a building they dont have a legal right to walk into. That should be simple, call the military, which literally is minutes away and could have been there in no time flat, and stand back and do nothing until they got violent or a weapon was seen. Since they acted illegally but non-violently the police had no right or cause to act violently in return and did not have the physical man power to non-violently handle the situation.

> So this means Trump “just” supported creating a dangerous situation on the road involving his political opponents in this case. That is still a massive problem.

Yes it is a problem that Trump supported their behavior that day. But it was not a show of support for violence, and does not come close to the issues and violence from the left. I have never claimed Trump wasn't a problem or that he doesnt make really shitty choices. Only that he isnt as bad as the other side. that has more to do with just how horrifically bad the other side is and less to do with any merrit Trump himself has.

> Yeah, good idea, dismiss the argumets because some people vaguely related to them were violent.

And again more hyperbole and even a little bit of strawman. No I dont dismiss your arguments, not wholly, though they are excessively exaggerated. What I have said and continue to say is that while there are many points of concern for Trump and a good portion of the ones you bring up, once you wash off the mountain of hyperbole on top of them, even have a grain ot validity to them. but they pale in comparison to the repeated and continued violence and rights violations coming from and promoted by the left and even by Biden himself.

> promoting fringe political conspiracy theories and ignoring the standard decorum of liberal democracy would lead to anti-democratic changes. This was dismissed as alarmist.

What standard decorum, there is nothing remotely respectful of the tactics the liberal democrats have pulled, not even close. Nor is anything trump said anti-democratic, it is conspiracy theorist, and often moronic, but not anti democratic. He thinks the vote was cheated from him. I personally dont (though the last 24 hours seeing at least one state try to pass a law, by democrats, to hide election security auditing from the public is a scary red flag and if i see this pattern continue i might actually agree with him).

> When he stated that he would accept the resuts of an election if he won, people were worried this meant he wouldn’t accept the results if he didn’t. This was dismissed as alarmist.

And this has been shown and proven exactly to be alarmist. He stated early on when questioned if he would leave if he lost, he said very straight forward, yes he would. He has at no point refused to leave and only exercised democratic avenues to challenge the election. Now that the day has come to leave, he has left without a peep... So yes this has quite literally been proven to be alarmist.

> When he (predictably) didn’t accept the results after losing people were worried this would result in attempts to overthrow the results by force. This was dismissed as alarmist.

Again, it was alarmist and demonstrated as such. There was no legitimate or sizable number of people who attempted to overthrow anything. A few people rushed into buildings they weren't allowed in and walked around peacefully taking selfies, a window was broken and that was about it, right up until a cop decided to murder one of the unarmed people at which point the crowd got rowdy but even then it was relatively minimal compared to the size of the crowd.

If this statement had even a glimmer of truth to it, if even 5% of that crowd, hell 1% of that crowd had any intention of actually overthrowing anywhing there would be people **other** than protestors dead and they would have gotten a lot farther. Instead you had half a dozen nut jobs and a bunch of people just being peaceful and taking selfies when not being actively beaten or attacked.

while none of what they did is acceptable calling it a legitimate attempt to overthrow the government is absurdism at its finest.

> Now such an attempt happened, and being worried about it is being dismissed as alarmist. “Oh it was just a small coup attempt, nothing to worry about, our democracy is absolutely fine.” What is next?

Yea half a dozen people having delusion of grandeur thinking they can overthrow a government, none of who were armed, and of that half a dozen who were willing to be violent limited their violence to broken windows at worst and have yet to see even a single video of them physically being violent against a person (punching them kicking them etc). the closest you have is some guy being pushed up against a wall and getting squished by the passing crowd as there were too many people...

I mean hell the level of exageration here as you try to turn a shitty incident with very minimal violence and some tress passing into some rampaging mob out for blood is really hard to take seriously on any level and invalidates any chance you have of coming across objective enough to actually make an argument in any of this.

**I mean hell you already admitted that one video you cited as your strongest piece of evidence of violence, the texas video is one you didnt even watch and after several back and forths finally admitted didnt even depict violence at all**

@antigravman

@srwennekes that would depend on how you measure it and what you call call a deficit. He engaged in Quantitative Easing through a lot of his presidential career, which means he effectively printed new money and used it to buy private assets which then is used to offset the deficit. So he basically traded in the value of the dollar for a lower deficit. Which by any measure is not an improvement, though it may seem like on on paper. He didnt do anything in terms of actual economy building however that would improve the economic stance of the USA.

@Unhip1

Sure does, a user can literally spam all the most vile hateful or even ilelgal things they want all day and as long as the moderators are blocked, and especially if they post unlisted and only to likeminded people so no one would ever likely report them we would never hear about it.

Some user could come months later and see months and months of such posts and assume (understandably so) that our server condones such behavior. Thankfully none of that has gotten that far yet. But it has come come close a few times where I have found quite old accounts that had us blocked for months with some horrific content that I never saw and never got a report on.

@QOTO @Gargron @arteteco @Sphinx @khird

@snow

Its false for 2 reasons..

1) **you** are the one who created those accounts and posted it

2) you made no attempt to actually report the account so moderators could even be aware of it and remove it, largerly because that wasnt your intent. You tried to get us blocked instead.

@Gargron @arteteco @khird @QOTO @Sphinx