Fully agree -- documentation as markdown committed alongside the code (and processes to ensure that it is kept up-to-date, discoverable and browsable) is the best way to avoid docs going stale or abandonned.
You can go all the way and make a Hugo website out of those Markdown docs pretty easily too. If anyone wants help doing this, feel free to drop me a line!
That's the challenge we at Komment (komment.ai) are taking on -- providing tools to maintain high-quality, up-to-date code documentation. We enable developers to spend more time developing, and less time documenting or figuring out what undocumented code does :-)
A magnetic object attracts or repells another object with the exact same strength that affects it. Look up Newton's third law, in case your not familiar with it -- can't tell from your messages.
I'm just saying you don't have to expel a gas to form thrust. Seems like a lot of the arguments here are 'newtons law requires to expel something to form thrust'. But magnets don't expel a gas. The forces translate.
The presentation is not advocating that they are violating the 3rd law. Most people's argument here boils down to 'but but , thrust, the 3rd law, duh, I read an engineering book in school once'. And dismiss this out of hand.
He provides a prototype, at least give it the same attention as the high temperature superconductor and replicate it, then provide some explanation where the force is coming from that negates any benefit. Like find if there is some static charge at play that is causing the measurement error and would make it useless.
"Econ people" is short for "Economics people". Another word for "Economics people" would be "Economists", but it might also include people who have an interest in economics but don't consider themselves economists.
And as for the plural, An "econ person" would be an economist. The OP specified "Econ people".
I'm a bit confused about the point you are trying to make.
Based on your comment history, you seem comfortable with taking liberties with the English language to get your point across quickly (e.g. omitting implicit pronouns and articles in sentences such as 'Somehow never was true with Iceland.', or 'They should quit Euro (Merkel will never allow because others would follow suit) and debase currency. Do exactly as Iceland did.')
So I'm not sure why you seem to take particular issue with 'econ', which is a very common casual way to refer, e.g., to the economics major at uni. ('econ 101' etc)
As peterjmag indicated in his comment, 9^9^9 looks like 9^(9^9) which is actually greater than 9!!.
A different way of looking at it is n! < n^n. We can see from here that factorization isn't really the new paradigm that the author is looking for; it's just a part of the exponentiation paradigm.
Furthermore, factorials don't really scale or stack easily. What the author is getting at in the relevant location is stacking the same concept:
1. Multiplying is just adding the same number several times.
2. Exponentiation is just multiplying the same number several times.
3. Tetration is just exponentiation several times.
4. Etc.
This allows us to generate the infinite hierarchy easily expressible by the ackerman numbers (which is basically A(i) = f_i(i,i)), which doesn't generate itself as easily with factorialization in place of exponentiation.
When writing factorials you would want to write (9!)! since 9!! is actually a different operation (the double factorial). 9!! = 9 x 7 x 5 x 3 x 1, so 9!! is less than 9!.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you supposed to evaluate stacked exponents from the top down? That is, 9^(9^9) instead of (9^9)^9. If that's the case, 9^(9^9) is much larger than 9!!. Though I'm not sure how much larger, since I couldn't find any big integer calculators online that would give me an actual result for 9^(9^9).
It's not surprising, but it's not logically inevitable.
Suppose every couple divorced exactly on their 50th anniversary if they were both still alive. Then a couple that has been married 49 years is almost certain to divorce, whereas a newly married couple has a reasonable chance of dying first.
I believe the point being made here is that for a given couple on a given day, the length of their marriage dictates the probability that they _will_ get divorced. Almost like a hard drive where MTBF increases as the drive is used.
