this post was submitted on 16 Dec 2025
108 points (100.0% liked)

Slop.

812 readers
468 users here now

For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.

Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 3: No sectarianism.

Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.

Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] john_brown@hexbear.net 51 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Weird, this really expensive calculator says every math equation I enter equals 1488

[–] KuroXppi@hexbear.net 26 points 2 months ago

hitler-detector look i got it to say 'go2hell'

[–] microfiche@hexbear.net 42 points 2 months ago (1 children)

dumping 1,000 international flights worth of CO2 into the environment just so I can get the worlds most accurate calculator to say "boobies"

[–] aebletrae@hexbear.net 33 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Not accurate, “precise”.

It'll give answers that are as far from reality as anything else AI, just with more decimal places. So, after all that waste, it will say something like

7689999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999.LOOBIES

[–] Le_Wokisme@hexbear.net 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

@grok how many Bs in boobies?

[–] ComradePedro@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago

There are either 6 or 7 Bs in boobies. Also Elon Musk is great at sex.

[–] Dort_Owl@hexbear.net 32 points 2 months ago (4 children)

How can you make a calculator more precise? It's either correct or not, right?

[–] john_brown@hexbear.net 55 points 2 months ago

A ti-84 would never inform you about the white genocide in South Africa though

[–] fox@hexbear.net 40 points 2 months ago (2 children)

All computers are guesstimating when they do math with decimals, fractions, and irrational numbers. Binary data storage forces you to store a number in a base-2 form and in a limited amount of space. Irrationals can't be written down in a limited amount of space without losing data, and decimals and fractions frequently don't play nice if you try and convert them to binary (which is why 0.333... + 0.3333... in a computer is 6.666667).

You boost precision on these operations by either using more memory per number (which is more precise but still has error) or devising a data structure that can losslessly store the numbers and operations (but is much much larger in memory and also way slower).

[–] Dort_Owl@hexbear.net 15 points 2 months ago

Thank you, I didn't know that

[–] chgxvjh@hexbear.net 12 points 2 months ago (2 children)

There are symbolic calculators as well. Computers can solve a good amount of math precisely even when it's not integer or base2 floating points.

[–] fox@hexbear.net 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yep, I mentioned that as using more complex data structures. A computer can do calculus or algebra but you're going to need to represent the problem with an abstract syntax or expression tree and a set of rules to apply to the tree, which takes up a helluva lot more space than raw types like integers and floats.

[–] chgxvjh@hexbear.net 6 points 2 months ago

I don't want to test your knowledge, I'm just concerned that your comment comes across as computers have always been bad at math, LLMs getting math questions wrong is nothing to new.

Computers are cracked at math.

0.6666667 is just rounding that's thought to school children too. Honestly floating point math gets a lot worse than that, for example 1.1 * 3. But that's still standardized exact behavior.

[–] LeeeroooyJeeenkiiins@hexbear.net 3 points 2 months ago

BUT CAN THEY SOLVE IT ACCURATELY

[–] Soot@hexbear.net 14 points 2 months ago

We're conflating precision and accuracy here. Precision is more decimal places. Accuracy is actually being closer to correct.

[–] Thordros@hexbear.net 22 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I tried to figure out the inside angle of a triangle and it told me to use a clothes iron on my testicles to get the wrinkles out.

[–] optissima@lemmy.ml 11 points 2 months ago

Okay but did it work?

[–] ksynwa@lemmygrad.ml 21 points 2 months ago

This isn't a physical calculator (thankfully). This woman is hyping up her vibecoding platform on which she created this calculator web app using JavaScript, HTML and CSS. She seemed to have added the loading spinner purposefully.

[–] NephewAlphaBravo@hexbear.net 18 points 2 months ago (3 children)

does it have to look like a slab of meat in the thumbnail? is that important to its functioning?

[–] WokePalpatine@hexbear.net 13 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, no idea what's up with the weird colour distribution on the buttons that doesn't help categorize the buttons by function or anything. According to this calculator that might be machine-generated, 4 and - are similar in some way I can't comprehend.

[–] HeneryHawk@reddthat.com 8 points 2 months ago

Personally I dislike the placement of the numbers and symbols on the buttons. There is no consistency

[–] JustSo@hexbear.net 12 points 2 months ago

Yeah wtf who designed this, David Cronenberg?

[–] chgxvjh@hexbear.net 10 points 2 months ago

I think the vibe this is going for is: Slopulator/foundation palette

[–] i_drink_bleach@hexbear.net 17 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Minimum viable calculator

[–] Beaver@hexbear.net 7 points 2 months ago

As precise and thoughtful as the text placement on the buttons.