Ai generated text being too concise is not a problem I’m encountering. What we’ve begun to term “Claudish” tends to more closely approximate those “become an expert in X using this one weird trick“ articles that go on and on and never quite seen to get to the point.
Usually I’m getting better results by telling it to be more concise.
Here, I will give you my upvote! That's how Issuetrak is. The founder (me), still owns a majority of the stock, there's no outside investment, and we have customers who've been with us more than 20 years. Multiple employees as well!
Thus layoffs, no need to keep as many employees around.
There is no MBA like magical growth, the amount of customers is a physical limitation of inhabitants on planet Earth that are willing to actually use a specific piece of software, regardless of how productive it was made in first place.
In Australia there is a scale model of the Solar System where the sun is the main dome of Siding Springs observatory and the planets are on billboards at scale size and distance. Pluto is several hundred kilometres away (and the size of a tennis ball on the billboard)
This discussion has made me wonder what it would look like to have a different scale where the distances are based on the “speed limit” (which is mostly 100km/hr)…so that earth, for example, would be 8min from the Sun. Neptune or Pluto would be 4 - 7 hours away.
It would still fit in Australia but be significantly larger.
The 10,000,000,000 (1 : 10B) scale would be kind of neat for Australia. Six soccer fields in Sydney and you've got the Sun to Pluto. One soccer field holds the Sun to Jupiter.... Alpha Centauri is in Perth. The speed of light is 100 meters / hour.
> Of course that as you get closer to C, the traveling object will experience time dilation (relative to observer), so the time passed will be less. At 99.999% C, the traveler would take ~11,000 years to arrive to Andromeda.
When you say constant 1g acceleration, do you mean acceleration well past the speed of light? I thought we were talking about all speeds less than the speed of light.
You can accelerate constantly at 1g without ever reaching the speed of light. A constant acceleration takes you from non-relativistic speeds to 0.1c, then to 0.9c, then to 0.999c, then to 0.9999c, , and so on, without ever reaching 1c (impossible if you have mass) -- but it takes increasingly more energy to accelerate.
The Lorentz factor, which governs time dilation and length contraction, is calculated as (1 / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)), where v is the relative velocity of the object and c is the speed of light. You can replace (v^2 / c^2) with the factor beta^2, where beta is the ratio of v to c, e.g. 0.99999 in this case. Since (1 / sqrt (1 - 0.999...)) grows without bound in the limit as beta approaches (but doesn't reach) 1, if you keep accelerating, the time dilation keeps getting larger, without limits. It just takes a LOT of energy to do so.
I was still at a loss for the answer to how it could take 11k vs 28 years or so. I asked AI. lol
The thing I didn’t realize is the massive difference between 99.999% vs 99.9999% of the speed of light. I took 99.999% to mean "effectively the speed of light.” Relativity is weird.
Usually I’m getting better results by telling it to be more concise.
reply