- Feature Articles
- CodeSOD
- Error'd
-
Forums
-
Other Articles
- Random Article
- Alex's Soapbox
- Announcements
- Best of…
- Best of Email
- Best of the Sidebar
- Bring Your Own Code
- Coded Smorgasbord
- Mandatory Fun Day
- Off Topic
- Representative Line
- News Roundup
- Editor's Soapbox
- Software on the Rocks
- Souvenir Potpourri
- Sponsor Post
- Tales from the Interview
- The Daily WTF: Live
- Virtudyne
Admin
Cthulhu fhtagn
Admin
Normally I'd say the last one was Null Island, but that one's off the coast of Africa, not in the middle of the Pacific.
Admin
You could always go with banker's rounding, where .5 is rounded to the nearest even number, so 5.50 would go to 6. Fun fact: this is the default rounding convention in .NET.
Admin
The Bleak Expectations radio comedy is excellent and well worth checking out too.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00cwgs6
Admin
I prefer to use all natural logs to build my wooden tables. If it was good enough for Euler, it's good enough for me.
Admin
I was taught - and have done it this way ever since - that 0.5 rounds up. So your £5.50 (for a tiny beer) would go into the £6 field.
0.01 to 0.49 rounds down, 0.50 to 0.99 rounds up (to 2 decimal places - longer values are available).
Admin
The natural log that my mother understood was pieces of dead tree, rather than the inverse of e^x. It think the A.I. (or A.I. light) that is driving the page is trying too hard and missing.
Admin
There are many rules for how to do rounding, some more obscure than others.
Admin
And sometimes natural logs are fairly round to begin with.
Admin
In this case, where the numbers are supposed to represent ranges, I'd consider 5 to mean 5.xx, and say it goes in 1-5, the same way someone who's 17 years and 364 days old is still in an 11-17 group and not 18-25. (Or the way speedrunners consider times, and somehow 4:59.99 counts as breaking 4:59.) It's still a WTF, but that's probably the best answer.
Admin
This is the Spacecraft cemetery in the South Pacific, where defunct spacecraft are deorbited to become oceanic debris.
Admin
no, it means breaking 5:00
Admin
They'd call a 4:59.99 a 4:59, in general rounding down fractions of a second, and I'd have sworn I've seen references to breaking, say, the 4:59 barrier in achieving such a time but I can't find them now. It's a weird alignment/rounding direction choice, compared for example to a footracer who would never call a 4:01 or 4:59 or even a 4:00.01 a 4-minute mile. Anyway, regardless of the correctness of applying that method to race times, the point is that the rounded-down-integer-range approach does seem sensible in the context of the original post.
Admin
They'd call a 4:59.99 a 4:59, and I've have sworn I've seen references to breaking/achieving (say) 4:59 but can't find them now. A foot racer would not call a 4:59 or 4:01 or 4:00.01 a 4-minute mile. Anyway, the point is that the rounded-down-integer-range approach does seem sensible in the context of the original post.