I am interested in what you think of HR-6544, the Atomic Energy Advancement Act. The Union of Concerned Scientists opposes it on certain grounds, but I really don't have the background to make any sort of informed decision. It does bother me when nuclear energy is not considered "sustainable". What, is there not enough fissile material to at least serve as a stopgap on the way to (hopefully) fusion or something? I'm a little skeptical of that. Yeah, I get that you need fossil fuels to at least get it out of the ground (now, at least), but come on ...
"You're not gonna wanna take an alpha dose internally." *scribbles down on notepad* don't... eat... radioactive... substances... if they give off alpha particles. got it.
@@wwoods66 *sadly puts the banana down* [NOTE: in the interest of full disclosure, this commenter acknowledges they are fully aware that bananas are actually relatively inert, and their low level of radioactivity is used on diagrams as a baseline because most organic matter is as radioacrive or more, but really that just reinforces the point]
@@TheUncannyF the problem with the US units isn't the units, but that we still use them. The problem is us Americans. In the day they came from, they were much more useful than base 10, because almost all the US units are based on highly factorizable conversion rates. This is important when you're comparing things and using standardized objects to compare them. Nowadays, there's no reason to stick with them when it just makes communicating with the rest of the world harder. The units made sense and had practical usage when they originated. Even now, pound force and pound mass is functionally the same as how laypeople would use kilograms. People pick up a weight and think it weighs 5 kilograms. The kilogram that most people think of is kilogram force, where you multiply one kilogram mass by the acceleration of gravity on Earth. One pound force is one pound mass multiplied by the acceleration of gravity on Earth. Ounces and volume and weight does suck, but this time not because it's the same word but because we dropped the rest of the unit. The word ounce derived from a word that meant "one twelfth" which if it was used consistently would make it similar to the deca- prefix in SI, but it somehow became a sixteenth instead, although jewelry still uses it as a twelfth. Anyway, an ounce is a sixteenth of a pound or a sixteenth of a pint.
@@markandrew5968 What helped me immensely with the whole oz./fl.oz. and pound/pint thing is realizing that one unit of volume of water has one of the corresponding unit of mass. Much like with a liter/kilogram of water.
@@markandrew5968 I agree, of course. For "human scale" things imperial units are sometimes easier / more convenient due to tradition. Funny thing though - by mentioning 1/12 You reminded me not only of ancient Babylonians (who used based 12 - which has more whole fractions than base 10, and is still - covertly - used in trigonometry), but also of "gauge". By which I mean "12 gauge shotgun", "X gauge wire". I may be wrong, but I remember reading somewhere that X in "gauge X" comes from taking a "standard" cannonball and halving it X times. Therefore the diameter of copper wire of gauge X is a diameter of a cross-section area of a sphere which one would get after halving a cannonball X times. Wild.
When I was a Nuclear Power Plant Reactor Operator, S.C.R.A.M. was an official acronym that stood for Safety Control Rod Actuating Mechanism. This was the official name.
The 'curie' is the older unit of radiation (nuclear decay), so it was based on natural phenomena, like the foot or pound. In this case, the radiation from a gram of radium -- an element discovered by the Curies. 14:50 "I don't know if they were trying to say some statement about Curie's contribution" Kind of. "At the 1910 meeting, which originally defined the curie, it was proposed to make it equivalent to 10 nanograms of radium (a practical amount). But Marie Curie, after initially accepting this, changed her mind and insisted on one gram of radium. According to Bertram Boltwood, Marie Curie thought that "the use of the name 'curie' for so infinitesimally small [a] quantity of anything was altogether inappropriate".[2] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curie_(unit)
I’ve found that a lot of LED bulbs are really inflating their “incandescent watt equivalent” so a bulb labeled as “100W equivalent” is barely as bright as a 60W incandescent. Compare lumens. This is the way. 😁
exp(...) can be very useful when the ... is very complicated or not a number, because technically e^... is only defined for number exponents, and the () is very useful for readability
Or when it's much easier to keep things inline like on a youtube comment or internet text messengers Or in a lot of programming languages, you don't have the "^" operator so you get a math library with the "exp" function But otherwise yeah. On paper I'd only see "exp" either for complicated powers or function composition, IE. exp( g(f(x)) ) Or for stuff like Matrix exponentiation, IE. exp(Mᵀ)
It also means that log(...) and exp(...) have the same form factor, which can make it a bit easier to see relations when you're playing around with equations!
i think for someone learning math, learning that the exponential function is e to a power can be a bit restricting when trying to think outside the box since you have two other forms of the function that work completely fine, being its taylor series and the compound interest one which let you play with different maths
@@txchno4271 I have no idea how what you're saying is related to what I wrote. Ofc students have to learn that all these different approaches lead to the same function, but the compound interest problem is solved the easiest way by writing down the Taylor formula
As was suggested on the prior video, you should check out "a joke about measurement" by jan Misali Edit: which apparently this video also mentioned 36:09
18:20 this is super interesting for me to think about, because I work in the biomedical industry where we're talking about crosslinking polyethylene or sterilizing medical devices, and radiation is in the range of 50kGy for crosslinks and above 100kGy for sterilization. I've never really considered or conceptualized uSv or millirem before!
Regarding the nested definitions. In my field (IT) there is a definition called EPROM. An EPRROM is a erasable PRROM. A PRROM is a Programmable RROM and a RROM is a rewritable ROM and a ROM is a read only memory. It isn't quite the same, because technically those are definition extensions, but they feel similar.
kWh/1,000 hours is indeed cursed. But in practical terms it also makes a lot of sense where it's shown. The energy label is standardized across a LOT of products. Yes, for something that uses the same amount of power all the time it's powered it does seem stupid. But here's a question - if your fridge draws 200 watts, how much does it cost to run? It's not running all the time. So THAT label says XYZ kWh/annum, as the expectation is that it is plugged in and powered constantly. For a washing machine, dryer or dishwasher, it doesn't make sense to talk per 1,000 hours, because that's now how you use those. It's not per annum either, because you're not running it constantly either. It's per 100 cycles - because a single person household is going to run them a lot fewer times a year than a household with six people. And TVs? How much they're used depends on the household as well. But it's not going to be per use, because it doesn't have fixed cycles. It's not going to be per year, because you don't run a TV 24/7. So it's per 1,000 hours. Same for things like lights, because they're also used like that. Cursed unit? Yes. Very smart design? Absolutely. And we all know that it's because the EU average price in the second half of 2023 - a weighted average using the most recent (2022) consumption data for electricity by household consumers - was €7.908 x 10^-8/joules. I don't know about you, but I don't have that kind of small change lying around. > ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Electricity_price_statistics#Electricity_prices_for_household_consumers
Idle thought: If you use Boltzmann's constant to represent temperature in terms of energy, heat capacity becomes dimensionless, so specific heat capacity could have units of inverse kilogram. though obviously it shouldn't. Worth noting that this is actually not as unintuitive as it sounds. One inverse kilogram is the specific heat capacity of a substance such that one joule of energy heats up one kilogram of the substance by one joule's worth of temperature (one joule divided by the Boltzmann constant, or about 7.243*10^22 K). This reveals the real problem, which is that using energy to represent temperature represents a massive disparity in scale the likes of which things like Avogadro's number exist to reconcile.
CGS makes perfect sense for science purposes and still occasionally used. What's funny is how energy output of a supernova or hypernova sometimes written in ergs (10^{51} ergs, lol).
exp(x) is infinitely worse than e^x. I didn't even know what I was looking at when I first saw it; never even thought it was connected to e. Very annoying, in my opinion. I don't get the point of it.
I don't know for sure that it is the case with this, but many of these things are the result of early computational physics simulations, and the limitations of displays on early computers. When the text displayed is entirely black and white, with no gray values, and each character was a single digit number of pixels wide and tall, superscripts and small characters should be avoided as much as possible for clarity and legibility. Additionally, most early computers had extremely limited character sets to reduce the amount of memory taken by each character. Some early computers only had upper case letters as a result of those two needs. A lot of mathematical functions with special symbols or characters got written out as text instead, like EXP(), POW() SQRT(), SUM(), ETC. When mathematicians became the early programmers, those text abbreviations may have backtracked into use in mathematics, not just coding.
@@prefabricationTo expand on the earlier answer in this thread, which is mostly correct, it's worth adding that software today is still written using plaintext, it's not just a display technology limitation, there's just no clean way to represent 2-dimensional math notation, and the one-dimensional version needs to compromise this way. Mostly the basic conventions haven't changed much in the last 50 or 60 years.
On your note of writing out exp(thing) vs. e^thing, as a physicist my take is that it depends. I usually prefer the look of e^thing for simple expressions, but sometimes the quantity in the exponent is a complicated term involving multiple constants, ratios, even integrals, which can end up looking way too busy, or annoying to try to write that small. Exp(stuff) in those cases are much more readable.
The light bulb thing in Watts makes total sense for actual bulbs with an efficiency in the single digits. It's a great estimation of the heat energy the socket / housing will have to deal with. At least I've always understood those numbers as basically TDP.
In DSP programming we love radians. We can effectively model frequencyless waves. Basically describing the shape of a wave, not caring about frequency.
The magnetic reluctance SI unit is inverse henry or H^−1. However, since I hate inverse units, I use the MKS (meter, kilogram, second) system, in which the magnetic reluctance unit is the "ampere-turns per weber". We can also use the CGS system's "gilberts per maxwell" or, alternatively for extra cursedness, we can write it as "abampere-turn per gauss-square centimeter" or "biot-turn per gauss-centimeter" or ev+en "√dyne-turn per gram per biot per square centimeter". And yes, you guess it, we can use biot twice with "biot-turn per gram per biot per square centimeter" in which case I guess they cancel eachothers, so it's really just "turn per gram pe square centimeter". This makes absolutely no sense, since it means that magnetic reluctance is in fact some angle divided by pressure. So if we come back to SI, it means that it can be expressed as "degrees per pascal"... TL;DR Magnetic reluctance in SI units is inverse henry or, somehow, degrees per pascal.
I put a 65W "300W equivalent" LED bulb in my ceiling because I actively _want_ to flashbang myself in the morning to wake me up. Someone else buying a 65w light might be looking for a sensible household bulb. We are not the same.
I find that exp(x) usually is more readable in the chemistry context, especially when the lecture slide or whatever isn’t professionally typeset. It might just be what everyone is used to though.. and that seems to be a common thread in cursed units 😂
exp() is definitely less cursed, because in many contexts the exponential function makes more sense as a power series (the limit of a series of polynomials) than as a generalization of repeated multiplication. however, I prefer writing it as an exponent because, well, I'm the kinda guy who loves taking the logarithm of units.
3:00 Funny how i just explained one of my co-worker, the Lm is the unit of brightness that is much more closer to what you would expect, the 1W = 10W conversion also doesnt makes much sense, since if you look at a 3W LED, you feel like you get blinded, cant think that would happened with a 30W old style bulb. Its like the more watt LED is, there more out of wack the Watt comparison gets.
Interestingly fuel usage is also quiet cursed it is (depending on what you are using MPG or Lieters/100km) distance divided by volume or volume divided by distance so it is effectivly an area
The KWh was born like that: You use machine that consumes 1 KWh for one hour. That is KWh. The KWh/1000h is probably born like this: You run machine that is consuming One KWh per 1000 hours. It is like taking energy consumed and dividing it by time That is what we call a watt in SI.
So you’ve encountered nested acronyms, but have you encountered _recursive_ acronyms? For example, GNU, the fundamental program library for the Linux operating system, stands for GNU is Not Unix
No, I am often confused by the exp() notation, since we don't use it in Germany (I think/hope?)... So until recently I always wondered to which base something was being raised, because I read it as the hat in "x^y", not as "e^y"
Tyler, pressure may not be significant in the contexts you work in, but there is one application where I believe it's critical: nuclear weapons. As I understand it, it's radiation pressure that heats and compresses the fuel in a thermonuclear device, thereby initiating fusion. A similar approach (using lasers) is being investigated for controlled fusion power reactors.
exp(z) and e^z are meaningfully different in complex analysis because e^z isnt necessarily a single valued function but exp(z) is. though a lot of people write it as e^z anyway so its really a notational thing more than anything
Chemistry units and thermodynamic properties make a lot more sense if you think of it as "mol of X" or "g of Y" -- the type of chemical matters. A gram of water is different than a gram of mercury. Similarly, a revolution is a different thing than a decay event or the crest of a wave. In physics we tend to forget this, because forces don't care what the matter is, just what its mas is.
10:09 I think it depends on what is under exponent. If it is simple number or variable, then e power something is a way to go. On the other hand, if it's some kind of monstrosity like here, exp looks much better. Can you image e power huge fraction with million variables, roots, functions and maybe more fractions?
I suspect that the dimensionlessness of the radian is not like the dimensionlessness of the fine structure constant 🤔 In particular the radian feels more ‘dimensionfull’ 😅
Unpopular opinion: I find the SI units for electricity way more cursed than the CGS ones. CGS has two concurrent systems for big things and small things and those don't mix, like Ohm and Farad do in the SI system
I'd say exp is more cursed, because you can do funny magic with it like exp ^harmonic(x) [x] where ^ denotes a real number integrity toward repeating the function before it.
The angular units are mildly painful to me. The difference is dot product vs cross product, but both are represented as multiplication in the units, so they look the same. Why not just specify dot vs cross in the units?! It would be annoying to convert to that now given how long the world has used the current one, but I really wish that was specified. It also seems like something that would be covered in a physics class at some point, but every physics class I took (which was as many as I could, up through college) just sort of ignored it, and explained it as "You can't do that because that's how it is". And my teachers were all amazing, it's just not covered for some reason. I had to ask separately, and the college professor still had to check a textbook to answer. I think I could've figured it out on my own, but I was already talking about something related, so I figured I might as well ask. Also, now less related but still really annoying - Significant digits! I understand the application, and the rules that were given, but the problem is that they break down very quickly for anything past addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. And even mixing those can give incorrect results, depending on what set of rules you're told to use. I know where the problem is, but that system is fundamentally flawed. Also, just state the uncertainty instead? That produces reliable results, can account for errors that don't align with the base you're working in (so base 10 for the vast majority of cases unless you're me [I like working in binary when I'm solving a lot of the time]), and is much more useful and understandable.
Would you like to check out plainly difficult's history of lucens reactor meltdown? I find it interesting for the fact that the coolant is something different from regular reactor
The Planck length and time are really small (very roughly, a hundred billion trillion trillionth of a metre and a ten million trillion trillion trillionth of a second), and the Planck temperature is really big (very roughly, a hundred million trillion trillion Kelvin), but the Planck energy is weirdly intermediate (it's about 500 kilowatt-hours). The corresponding Planck mass is about 20 micrograms, or about the mass of a mite.
29:06 WTF is happening here, 2 minute rant that includes all the bad takes😆😆, I can take cursed units all day, but cursed editing is whole another level🤣🤣🤣 it made my head hurt trying to follow😅
Megawatt days per kilogram of uranium depends on how enriched it is? What if we have 100% uranium? :) 24:51 Foucault's result is impressively accurate, it's off by less than 8 km/s (in the ballpark of 27 millionths).
exp (?) is def weirder than ?^? (Something to the power of something), but I can understand it simply as a way to help differentiate for people who don't have good text sizing when writing. Also doing math with non-standard units is... basically a fool's errand. Can't do math when the numbers decide to change themselves arbitrarily.
Thanks so much for watching! For part 1 of my reaction to Cursed Units, please check out: ruclips.net/video/QCCRPqS_1ls/видео.htmlsi=oXyuJQN3fT_qVyOs
I am interested in what you think of HR-6544, the Atomic Energy Advancement Act. The Union of Concerned Scientists opposes it on certain grounds, but I really don't have the background to make any sort of informed decision.
It does bother me when nuclear energy is not considered "sustainable". What, is there not enough fissile material to at least serve as a stopgap on the way to (hopefully) fusion or something? I'm a little skeptical of that. Yeah, I get that you need fossil fuels to at least get it out of the ground (now, at least), but come on ...
I thinking about you should watch a other Roblox game but this time it's called the black hole core
you should explain kVAr, I saw them on my pilot course and could not understand how they worked...
I love taking the logarithm of units. It's fun. log(quantity UNITS) = log(quantity) + log(UNITS)
Figuring out what log(m) or log(°K) actually means can certainly be a task though
@@soorian6493 It's a formal term that represents the unit that will be recovered on exponentiation.
"You're not gonna wanna take an alpha dose internally."
*scribbles down on notepad* don't... eat... radioactive... substances... if they give off alpha particles. got it.
You can eat them once....
@@josh-gu6zi maybe more than once if you're fast
... I mean ... don't eat the others _either._
@@wwoods66unless a doctor tells you to, like Tec-99
@@wwoods66 *sadly puts the banana down*
[NOTE: in the interest of full disclosure, this commenter acknowledges they are fully aware that bananas are actually relatively inert, and their low level of radioactivity is used on diagrams as a baseline because most organic matter is as radioacrive or more, but really that just reinforces the point]
The "pH" of the sun is about -3.
it's more like a gradient but yes, on average it is -3
@@practicemodebutton7559 He did say "about", not "exactly", nonetheless you are right.
And there are acids stronger than the Sun.
My "favorite" cursed US units (from European perspective):
- Pounds of weight vs pounds of force
- Ounces of weight vs ounces of volume
- Acre-foot
Which is why the US should use the metric system (American BTW).
@@TheUncannyF the problem with the US units isn't the units, but that we still use them. The problem is us Americans.
In the day they came from, they were much more useful than base 10, because almost all the US units are based on highly factorizable conversion rates. This is important when you're comparing things and using standardized objects to compare them.
Nowadays, there's no reason to stick with them when it just makes communicating with the rest of the world harder.
The units made sense and had practical usage when they originated. Even now, pound force and pound mass is functionally the same as how laypeople would use kilograms. People pick up a weight and think it weighs 5 kilograms. The kilogram that most people think of is kilogram force, where you multiply one kilogram mass by the acceleration of gravity on Earth. One pound force is one pound mass multiplied by the acceleration of gravity on Earth.
Ounces and volume and weight does suck, but this time not because it's the same word but because we dropped the rest of the unit. The word ounce derived from a word that meant "one twelfth" which if it was used consistently would make it similar to the deca- prefix in SI, but it somehow became a sixteenth instead, although jewelry still uses it as a twelfth. Anyway, an ounce is a sixteenth of a pound or a sixteenth of a pint.
@@markandrew5968 What helped me immensely with the whole oz./fl.oz. and pound/pint thing is realizing that one unit of volume of water has one of the corresponding unit of mass. Much like with a liter/kilogram of water.
you forgot having 3 different tons
@@markandrew5968 I agree, of course. For "human scale" things imperial units are sometimes easier / more convenient due to tradition.
Funny thing though - by mentioning 1/12 You reminded me not only of ancient Babylonians (who used based 12 - which has more whole fractions than base 10, and is still - covertly - used in trigonometry), but also of "gauge". By which I mean "12 gauge shotgun", "X gauge wire". I may be wrong, but I remember reading somewhere that X in "gauge X" comes from taking a "standard" cannonball and halving it X times. Therefore the diameter of copper wire of gauge X is a diameter of a cross-section area of a sphere which one would get after halving a cannonball X times.
Wild.
When I was a Nuclear Power Plant Reactor Operator, S.C.R.A.M. was an official acronym that stood for Safety Control Rod Actuating Mechanism. This was the official name.
I suppose it was so you didn't ever forget what you're supposed to do if sh*t hit the fan
From the comments of Curseder Units: the sun has a pH of approximately -3
This is by far one of my favorite cursed facts
The 'curie' is the older unit of radiation (nuclear decay), so it was based on natural phenomena, like the foot or pound. In this case, the radiation from a gram of radium -- an element discovered by the Curies.
14:50 "I don't know if they were trying to say some statement about Curie's contribution"
Kind of.
"At the 1910 meeting, which originally defined the curie, it was proposed to make it equivalent to 10 nanograms of radium (a practical amount). But Marie Curie, after initially accepting this, changed her mind and insisted on one gram of radium. According to Bertram Boltwood, Marie Curie thought that "the use of the name 'curie' for so infinitesimally small [a] quantity of anything was altogether inappropriate".[2] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curie_(unit)
Cool
As an electrician in the US we use the lumen and Kelvin value to determine what kind of lamps to get. The watt stuff is for the peasants.
WAIT LOL rewatching the video with this reaction, i saw that i'm in the intro complimenting the music xD
You should definitely watch Jan Misali's a joke about measurement. That was referenced at the end of the video. It's hilarious m
I’ve found that a lot of LED bulbs are really inflating their “incandescent watt equivalent” so a bulb labeled as “100W equivalent” is barely as bright as a 60W incandescent.
Compare lumens. This is the way. 😁
exp(...) can be very useful when the ... is very complicated or not a number, because technically e^... is only defined for number exponents, and the () is very useful for readability
Or when it's much easier to keep things inline like on a youtube comment or internet text messengers
Or in a lot of programming languages, you don't have the "^" operator so you get a math library with the "exp" function
But otherwise yeah. On paper I'd only see "exp" either for complicated powers or function composition, IE. exp( g(f(x)) )
Or for stuff like Matrix exponentiation, IE. exp(Mᵀ)
It also means that log(...) and exp(...) have the same form factor, which can make it a bit easier to see relations when you're playing around with equations!
i think for someone learning math, learning that the exponential function is e to a power can be a bit restricting when trying to think outside the box since you have two other forms of the function that work completely fine, being its taylor series and the compound interest one which let you play with different maths
@@txchno4271 I have no idea how what you're saying is related to what I wrote. Ofc students have to learn that all these different approaches lead to the same function, but the compound interest problem is solved the easiest way by writing down the Taylor formula
As was suggested on the prior video, you should check out "a joke about measurement" by jan Misali
Edit: which apparently this video also mentioned 36:09
The Russians had an... interesting series of liquid metal reactors. The Alfa class had lead-bismuth reactors.
18:20 this is super interesting for me to think about, because I work in the biomedical industry where we're talking about crosslinking polyethylene or sterilizing medical devices, and radiation is in the range of 50kGy for crosslinks and above 100kGy for sterilization. I've never really considered or conceptualized uSv or millirem before!
Regarding the nested definitions. In my field (IT) there is a definition called EPROM. An EPRROM is a erasable PRROM. A PRROM is a Programmable RROM and a RROM is a rewritable ROM and a ROM is a read only memory. It isn't quite the same, because technically those are definition extensions, but they feel similar.
eeprom
btw ive never heard of rrom
It's definitely related, cause it's not that common for acronyms to be still useful when you truncate them several times over.
kWh/1,000 hours is indeed cursed. But in practical terms it also makes a lot of sense where it's shown. The energy label is standardized across a LOT of products. Yes, for something that uses the same amount of power all the time it's powered it does seem stupid.
But here's a question - if your fridge draws 200 watts, how much does it cost to run? It's not running all the time. So THAT label says XYZ kWh/annum, as the expectation is that it is plugged in and powered constantly. For a washing machine, dryer or dishwasher, it doesn't make sense to talk per 1,000 hours, because that's now how you use those. It's not per annum either, because you're not running it constantly either. It's per 100 cycles - because a single person household is going to run them a lot fewer times a year than a household with six people.
And TVs? How much they're used depends on the household as well. But it's not going to be per use, because it doesn't have fixed cycles. It's not going to be per year, because you don't run a TV 24/7. So it's per 1,000 hours. Same for things like lights, because they're also used like that.
Cursed unit? Yes. Very smart design? Absolutely.
And we all know that it's because the EU average price in the second half of 2023 - a weighted average using the most recent (2022) consumption data for electricity by household consumers - was €7.908 x 10^-8/joules. I don't know about you, but I don't have that kind of small change lying around.
> ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Electricity_price_statistics#Electricity_prices_for_household_consumers
Idle thought: If you use Boltzmann's constant to represent temperature in terms of energy, heat capacity becomes dimensionless, so specific heat capacity could have units of inverse kilogram. though obviously it shouldn't.
Worth noting that this is actually not as unintuitive as it sounds. One inverse kilogram is the specific heat capacity of a substance such that one joule of energy heats up one kilogram of the substance by one joule's worth of temperature (one joule divided by the Boltzmann constant, or about 7.243*10^22 K). This reveals the real problem, which is that using energy to represent temperature represents a massive disparity in scale the likes of which things like Avogadro's number exist to reconcile.
This baby can hold an 《INVERSE KILOGRAM NUMBER》of heat.
I, an analytical chemist, have actually had to use the barrer this year, as well as its SI counterpart. The conversion was horrendous.
10:13 - I pretty sure someone should invent two more units of absorbed dose, Blu and Gren, so the absorbed dose will cover all the spectre)
exp definitely looks weirder, but it removes ambiguity between the number e and e used for scientific notation
Perfect example of the chaotic lawful neutral
CGS makes perfect sense for science purposes and still occasionally used. What's funny is how energy output of a supernova or hypernova sometimes written in ergs (10^{51} ergs, lol).
exp(x) is infinitely worse than e^x. I didn't even know what I was looking at when I first saw it; never even thought it was connected to e. Very annoying, in my opinion. I don't get the point of it.
I don't know for sure that it is the case with this, but many of these things are the result of early computational physics simulations, and the limitations of displays on early computers. When the text displayed is entirely black and white, with no gray values, and each character was a single digit number of pixels wide and tall, superscripts and small characters should be avoided as much as possible for clarity and legibility. Additionally, most early computers had extremely limited character sets to reduce the amount of memory taken by each character. Some early computers only had upper case letters as a result of those two needs. A lot of mathematical functions with special symbols or characters got written out as text instead, like EXP(), POW() SQRT(), SUM(), ETC. When mathematicians became the early programmers, those text abbreviations may have backtracked into use in mathematics, not just coding.
@@markandrew5968 That makes sense from that perspective; I understand that.
@@prefabricationTo expand on the earlier answer in this thread, which is mostly correct, it's worth adding that software today is still written using plaintext, it's not just a display technology limitation, there's just no clean way to represent 2-dimensional math notation, and the one-dimensional version needs to compromise this way. Mostly the basic conventions haven't changed much in the last 50 or 60 years.
In defense of exp() sometimes your parameters are so big or complex you just don't feel like writing a string of tiny numbers
@@melon4738 That makes sense. But personally, it doesn't bother me; but fair enough, still.
If you haven’t already, you should react to jan misali’s “a joke about measurement”, it’s really good.
Great video! When I saw you reacted to part 1 I hoped this would be coming.
On your note of writing out exp(thing) vs. e^thing, as a physicist my take is that it depends. I usually prefer the look of e^thing for simple expressions, but sometimes the quantity in the exponent is a complicated term involving multiple constants, ratios, even integrals, which can end up looking way too busy, or annoying to try to write that small. Exp(stuff) in those cases are much more readable.
1:01 Command & Conquer: Generals Zero Hour!
OMG what a throwback! I need to start playing that again
definitely, its a great game
The light bulb thing in Watts makes total sense for actual bulbs with an efficiency in the single digits. It's a great estimation of the heat energy the socket / housing will have to deal with. At least I've always understood those numbers as basically TDP.
Clearly, the barrer can be understood as 10 to the -14 square meters per mercury-second
Yaknow, i loved the original videos, and i also find myself appreciating the stuff you add quite a bit. Love it
10:26 didn’t realize experience gain was exponential in math! Neat!
Good ol’ CGS system… had to deal with it when learning about nuclear fusion in stellar bodies…
If by all possible, you should react to Kyle Hill's video "World's only GLASS nuclear reactor!"
In DSP programming we love radians. We can effectively model frequencyless waves. Basically describing the shape of a wave, not caring about frequency.
Another reason is that the rad was developed years before the gray.
I've heared of Emu as an a bird that is unable to fly.
Hey I love Kurtwood Smith. He played Red Foreman of
That 70's Show
He was also in movies like, "Rambo" & "Delta Force"
MagLite tells their lights brightness on lumens. My ML150 LRX puts out 1 082 Lumens of light.
I kinda love the music. Its both peaceful, yet ominous.
The magnetic reluctance SI unit is inverse henry or H^−1. However, since I hate inverse units, I use the MKS (meter, kilogram, second) system, in which the magnetic reluctance unit is the "ampere-turns per weber". We can also use the CGS system's "gilberts per maxwell" or, alternatively for extra cursedness, we can write it as "abampere-turn per gauss-square centimeter" or "biot-turn per gauss-centimeter" or ev+en "√dyne-turn per gram per biot per square centimeter". And yes, you guess it, we can use biot twice with "biot-turn per gram per biot per square centimeter" in which case I guess they cancel eachothers, so it's really just "turn per gram pe square centimeter". This makes absolutely no sense, since it means that magnetic reluctance is in fact some angle divided by pressure. So if we come back to SI, it means that it can be expressed as "degrees per pascal"...
TL;DR Magnetic reluctance in SI units is inverse henry or, somehow, degrees per pascal.
I put a 65W "300W equivalent" LED bulb in my ceiling because I actively _want_ to flashbang myself in the morning to wake me up. Someone else buying a 65w light might be looking for a sensible household bulb. We are not the same.
When I took chemistry. Moles were literally the one thing that made me want to quit. It was so annoying.
EMU is a big bird, kinda like an ostrich
I work in it and every single god damn time, we get a shipment of monitors, and i see "9kWh/1000h", i get a mathemarical stroke
Angular displacement is wild 🤘
the first time I saw exp() I thought it was short for exponent so number exp(y) I thought meant that number to the y power.
I do like fuel effciency as an area since it is the cross section of the fuel used if it was streatched next to the vehicle as it drives
I find that exp(x) usually is more readable in the chemistry context, especially when the lecture slide or whatever isn’t professionally typeset. It might just be what everyone is used to though.. and that seems to be a common thread in cursed units 😂
You have a shield wall ? Where did you find the vikings?
Nesting acronym: You Only YOLO Once
I love the unit for work in cgs: the erg
OK, the first one didn't really scream "cursed", but the second video with the CGS system and the number of ways to derive electrical units sure does.
exp() is definitely less cursed, because in many contexts the exponential function makes more sense as a power series (the limit of a series of polynomials) than as a generalization of repeated multiplication. however, I prefer writing it as an exponent because, well, I'm the kinda guy who loves taking the logarithm of units.
3:00 Funny how i just explained one of my co-worker, the Lm is the unit of brightness that is much more closer to what you would expect, the 1W = 10W conversion also doesnt makes much sense, since if you look at a 3W LED, you feel like you get blinded, cant think that would happened with a 30W old style bulb.
Its like the more watt LED is, there more out of wack the Watt comparison gets.
Interestingly fuel usage is also quiet cursed it is (depending on what you are using MPG or Lieters/100km) distance divided by volume or volume divided by distance so it is effectivly an area
We have equivalent wattage labels on bulbs in the UK too.
The KWh was born like that:
You use machine that consumes 1 KWh for one hour. That is KWh.
The KWh/1000h is probably born like this: You run machine that is consuming One KWh per 1000 hours. It is like taking energy consumed and dividing it by time
That is what we call a watt in SI.
So you’ve encountered nested acronyms, but have you encountered _recursive_ acronyms? For example, GNU, the fundamental program library for the Linux operating system, stands for GNU is Not Unix
Most of these units are far beyond the maths that I use daily.
Someone asked me "By what metric?" I said "MKS, not CGS". 😊
I need to evolve on your name, and hereby propose that CGS = "cursed garbage system"
No, I am often confused by the exp() notation, since we don't use it in Germany (I think/hope?)... So until recently I always wondered to which base something was being raised, because I read it as the hat in "x^y", not as "e^y"
You really should watch the "The 5 most dangerous chemicals on Earth" by SciShow. A bit on the shorter side, but fun.
Tyler, pressure may not be significant in the contexts you work in, but there is one application where I believe it's critical: nuclear weapons. As I understand it, it's radiation pressure that heats and compresses the fuel in a thermonuclear device, thereby initiating fusion. A similar approach (using lasers) is being investigated for controlled fusion power reactors.
Does anyone remember Monty Mole from, Super Mario World?
Ahh, C&C ZH? Cool :D
exp(z) and e^z are meaningfully different in complex analysis because e^z isnt necessarily a single valued function but exp(z) is. though a lot of people write it as e^z anyway so its really a notational thing more than anything
Chemistry units and thermodynamic properties make a lot more sense if you think of it as "mol of X" or "g of Y" -- the type of chemical matters. A gram of water is different than a gram of mercury. Similarly, a revolution is a different thing than a decay event or the crest of a wave.
In physics we tend to forget this, because forces don't care what the matter is, just what its mas is.
10:09 I think it depends on what is under exponent. If it is simple number or variable, then e power something is a way to go. On the other hand, if it's some kind of monstrosity like here, exp looks much better. Can you image e power huge fraction with million variables, roots, functions and maybe more fractions?
I suspect that the dimensionlessness of the radian is not like the dimensionlessness of the fine structure constant 🤔
In particular the radian feels more ‘dimensionfull’ 😅
Unpopular opinion: I find the SI units for electricity way more cursed than the CGS ones. CGS has two concurrent systems for big things and small things and those don't mix, like Ohm and Farad do in the SI system
If you haven't seen jan misali's joke about measurement, I can recommend it
1 meter = 3.34 * 10^(-9) seconds. I won't elaborate.
Free pie? Terrible? Never!
yup
I'd say exp is more cursed, because you can do funny magic with it like exp ^harmonic(x) [x] where ^ denotes a real number integrity toward repeating the function before it.
The angular units are mildly painful to me. The difference is dot product vs cross product, but both are represented as multiplication in the units, so they look the same. Why not just specify dot vs cross in the units?! It would be annoying to convert to that now given how long the world has used the current one, but I really wish that was specified.
It also seems like something that would be covered in a physics class at some point, but every physics class I took (which was as many as I could, up through college) just sort of ignored it, and explained it as "You can't do that because that's how it is". And my teachers were all amazing, it's just not covered for some reason. I had to ask separately, and the college professor still had to check a textbook to answer. I think I could've figured it out on my own, but I was already talking about something related, so I figured I might as well ask.
Also, now less related but still really annoying - Significant digits! I understand the application, and the rules that were given, but the problem is that they break down very quickly for anything past addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. And even mixing those can give incorrect results, depending on what set of rules you're told to use. I know where the problem is, but that system is fundamentally flawed. Also, just state the uncertainty instead? That produces reliable results, can account for errors that don't align with the base you're working in (so base 10 for the vast majority of cases unless you're me [I like working in binary when I'm solving a lot of the time]), and is much more useful and understandable.
I feel like a reactor with 100% U-235 fuel would would be trying very, very hard to stop being a reactor and would require a LOT of control rods.
Would you like to check out plainly difficult's history of lucens reactor meltdown? I find it interesting for the fact that the coolant is something different from regular reactor
I legitimately thought the original’s title was “crusader unit”
You make think the pi is terrible, but it's the point I remembered to thumbs up!
As a programmer, I prefer exp(x) notation.
I'm not fond of exp, but we have sin, cos, log, etc. It's just a function defined as exp(x)=e^x
The Planck length and time are really small (very roughly, a hundred billion trillion trillionth of a metre and a ten million trillion trillion trillionth of a second), and the Planck temperature is really big (very roughly, a hundred million trillion trillion Kelvin), but the Planck energy is weirdly intermediate (it's about 500 kilowatt-hours). The corresponding Planck mass is about 20 micrograms, or about the mass of a mite.
Cursed²
Just use mol×m^-1×s^-1×Pa^-1
wth this is the first time i've seen that game reverenced (1:04)
29:06 WTF is happening here, 2 minute rant that includes all the bad takes😆😆, I can take cursed units all day, but cursed editing is whole another level🤣🤣🤣 it made my head hurt trying to follow😅
Dear Mr. Folse, do you ever read your comments?
Found and explained created a new video about the X-12 nuclear powered train if you wanted to know.
Megawatt days per kilogram of uranium depends on how enriched it is? What if we have 100% uranium? :)
24:51 Foucault's result is impressively accurate, it's off by less than 8 km/s (in the ballpark of 27 millionths).
I just watched the first part
23:47 Same
I honestly prefer using exp(x) in lieu of e(x) for more complicated exponents, mostly because I have crappy handwriting.
Bro foucault ALSO did math??? I thought he did sociology or something
Watch "a joke about measurement" by jan misali.
Hey hey, I'm american and I use both metric and imperial.
CGS=Certified Gross System
exp (?) is def weirder than ?^? (Something to the power of something), but I can understand it simply as a way to help differentiate for people who don't have good text sizing when writing.
Also doing math with non-standard units is... basically a fool's errand. Can't do math when the numbers decide to change themselves arbitrarily.
The only curse unite are imperial