Difference between revisions of "Talk:2585: Rounding"
(Added comment on suggested furlongs per fortnight.) |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Wot no {{w|FFF system|furlongs per fortnight}}? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.126|172.70.91.126]] 23:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC) | Wot no {{w|FFF system|furlongs per fortnight}}? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.126|172.70.91.126]] 23:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | : I, too, was initially surprised that Randall hadn't used the standard joke measure. But, then I realized that F/F is so outrageously large that rounding wouldn't offer much advantage. [[User:MAP|MAP]] ([[User talk:MAP|talk]]) 05:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC) | ||
If we're using the table, can I suggest it be fully filled in, but mark "original (rounded)" value cells one key colour and the chosen conversion in another, so that scanning along (not necessarily adjacent/rightwards) then down (always next row) then along... you see the 'bounce around'. And we also get to appreciate what other fractional values ''could'' have been chosen, prior to rounding... Alternately, some flow-charty layout (perhaps contained within a nominally borderless version of the table?) with arrows leading across the width and filling in-between each down-step. Ideas only. I have others, but those seem the best bet to consider. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.113|172.70.85.113]] 01:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC) | If we're using the table, can I suggest it be fully filled in, but mark "original (rounded)" value cells one key colour and the chosen conversion in another, so that scanning along (not necessarily adjacent/rightwards) then down (always next row) then along... you see the 'bounce around'. And we also get to appreciate what other fractional values ''could'' have been chosen, prior to rounding... Alternately, some flow-charty layout (perhaps contained within a nominally borderless version of the table?) with arrows leading across the width and filling in-between each down-step. Ideas only. I have others, but those seem the best bet to consider. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.113|172.70.85.113]] 01:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 05:10, 24 February 2022
Wot no furlongs per fortnight? 172.70.91.126 23:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- I, too, was initially surprised that Randall hadn't used the standard joke measure. But, then I realized that F/F is so outrageously large that rounding wouldn't offer much advantage. MAP (talk) 05:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
If we're using the table, can I suggest it be fully filled in, but mark "original (rounded)" value cells one key colour and the chosen conversion in another, so that scanning along (not necessarily adjacent/rightwards) then down (always next row) then along... you see the 'bounce around'. And we also get to appreciate what other fractional values could have been chosen, prior to rounding... Alternately, some flow-charty layout (perhaps contained within a nominally borderless version of the table?) with arrows leading across the width and filling in-between each down-step. Ideas only. I have others, but those seem the best bet to consider. 172.70.85.113 01:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Disagree with the current (as of 23:27 US Eastern, 23 February) explanation. According to this site (https://ilovebicycling.com/average-bike-speed/), average downhill bike speed is over 45 mph. Since Cueball doesn't specify "on flat terrain", he should have no problem going 45 without exploiting imprecise conversions. Nitpicking (talk) 04:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- Huh? This does not say average downhill speed is > 45, it says "fastest". Also why would Cueball need to do this bizarre rounding if he can actually go 45mph? This is an exaggeration because he can only go a typical speed of 17mph.172.69.33.145 04:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
