It’s not about the size of the number, it’s about presenting information in a way that the average reader can understand. The best way to do that is to present it in the way that they’re accustomed to and I don’t think I’ve ever seen scientific notation used to refer to a sum of money.

It’s great that you and I understand scientific notation, but it’s worthlesss when you’re trying to get the average person to understand what you’re writing if they don’t know it themselves.

To make myself clear, I’m not saying that scientific notation isn’t useful, I’m just saying that most people don’t understand it.

For extra credit, 74,500,000,000,000,000 aka seventy four quintillion, five hundred quadrillion.

Not really. Most people aren’t familiar with scientific or engineering notation. Writing £1,000,000, one million pounds or £1Million is a lot clearer than writing £1×10^6.

My cars odometer says 91,584, not 91.584×10^3

I keep hearing about all the tankies here, but I’ve never actually encountered one.

I don’t think that liking the ideals of communism means that you want to bury all Putin related news or even that you support Putin at all. Russia hasn’t been communist for a very long time.

Why is this getting downvoted?

Ok, if you can find an unbiased source that says it costs the UK taxpayer more than 77p per person per year, I’ll read the rest of your comment.

https://news.stv.tv/scotland/how-much-does-the-royal-family-cost-a-breakdown-of-86-3m-in-key-figures

The royal family costs the UK tax payer 77p per year, most people aren’t outraged by that.

It can be argued that they attract a considerable amount of tourism, people that travel to the UK to see the Tower of London, the King’s guards, Buckingham palace and all the rest of it. There is also the “soft power”, people around the world are for some reason obsessed with the UK’s royal family and it does help with influence whether you’d argue that is for better or worse.

I understand that the obscene wealth they hold during a cost of living crisis is an image problem to say the least and I don’t defend that. Such obscene wealth is awful no matter who you are and according to the times rich list, there are at least 257 residents in the UK that are more wealthy than the Royals, some of them considerably so.

For the record, I’m not for or against the UK monarchy, I’m somewhere in-between and see validity in both sides of the argument.

I think everyone knows it’s ridiculous.

For some the monarchy is a living museum, they don’t have to like it, they just find it interesting.

It was you saying that they were turning the adverts off, now you’re saying they can’t. So to call my research “armchair” is quite ironic.

The article you shared said that it’s only creators not in the YPP that don’t receive revenue but you either didn’t read it or just decided to omit that information based upon your predetermined conclusion.

A quick Google says you’re wrong, I’m not an accountant for YouTube so I couldn’t prove otherwise. Presumably if there was zero benefit to creators, they would all turn the adverts off, rather than just some of them.

I’m aware that they only get a small percentage of the ad revenue but it’s like that in every business unfortunately. When I buy a loaf of bread at the supermarket, I know that only a tiny fraction of a percent the price will go in to the checkout worker’s or farmer’s, or the baker’s paycheck, but I’m not going to boycott supermarkets because of that.

A couple of ads isn’t the end of the world for most people. Whilst I understand that they are undersirable, I also want the creators I enjoy to be able to get paid.

Some of the creators I enjoy are quite niche and they put their time, effort and money in to making the content. I don’t think a couple of ads is too much to ask to help pay them back.

It’s not a new thing, I remember something called the anarchists cookbook (I think) that wasn’t too hard to find twenty years ago which is illegal to possess.

Edit: it is illegal to possess in the UK, apparently it’s legal in some other countries

I can only speak for the UK but since the 2009 banking crisis the poor have gotten poorer and the rich have gotten richer. Meanwhile the press have very successfully focused attention on to migrants.

A lot of people truly believe that they are poor, not because the richest are picking their pockets, but because the poorest are.

True, but that’s not the point. It’d clearly be unrealistic to equate the crime to things like rape or murder.

The man’s obviously sick in the head but at least didn’t attack a child irl.

It’s my understanding that it’s actually a pretty typical sentence. He’s obviously sick in the head but has been judged as little risk to children.

To be fair, some phones already have that but they have much lower spec cameras/lenses, so it’s currently a trade off.

If a flag ship phone were to find away to implement a flush top spec camera, it would still only be an incremental improvement rather than a great new technology or a substantial innovation.

Yh, I’m not for bailing out companies that are “too big to fail”, I see it as socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor, but that’s a separate debate.

Tech stocks were a interesting case as they bloated far beyond their actual value during COVID, what happened in 2023 was probably somewhat of a renormalization and now they’re back to business as usual. There will always be peaks and valleys, but I’d be very surprised to see tech stocks fail in the long term.

I’m not going to argue that there has been no progress, just that it’s not on the same scale.

Look at the difference between phones from 2004 to 2014, then from 2014 to 2024 and surely you’d have to agree. We’re looking at huge leaps in tech and innovation Vs much smaller incremental improvements.

And I’d once again like to state that this is not a complaint, just a point of view showing that astonishing amounts of technological innovation are not necessarily required to keep companies in business.

On the contrary, I absolutely appreciate it. I was about 15 when mobile phones first became a thing that everyone owned, so I’ve lived through the entire progression from when they were something only a well to do businessman would have all the way through to today. The first iPhone was 2007, 17 years ago btw.

When mobile phones became popular, each new generation of phones saw HUGE improvements and innovation. However, the last ten years has pretty much just been slight improvements to screen/camera/memory/CPU. Form wise and functionally, they’re very similar to the phone of ten years ago.

I understand that some technophiles will always be able to justify why the new iPhone is worth £1600 and if that’s what they want to spend their money on then good for them, but I personally think that they are kidding themselves. Today you can get a brilliant phone for £300 or even less.

In more recent news;

BBC News - Samsung profits jump by more than 900% on chips https://www.bbc.com/news/business-68738046