this post was submitted on 10 Feb 2026
724 points (98.9% liked)
People Twitter
9517 readers
1724 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician. Archive.is the best way.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's kind of awesome actually
It's amazing but emotionally frustrating. The problem with your partner actually always being right is that you feel like you never win or that your perspective may not be properly heard. The flip side is you don't have stupid arguments thst you didn't bring the stupid to and that's also awesome, but rough on the self esteem. Definitely requires learning better emotional processing so you actually understand the need or emotion at the core of what you're saying/requesting
I'm the kind of guy who will look stuff up. I think it's really important to admit when you're wrong and the other person was right. Don't move goal posts or claim you misunderstood. Just own it.
Like I was having a debate with my partner about if it was faster to go all the way up and over, or make a lot of turn-right then turn-left. I thought the ladder was faster because it approximates a straight line. She was like no that's crazy. Eventually I found that's called Manhattan distance and she was right, and I fully admitted defeat.
Just a friendly correction in case it's not an autocorrect/STT issue: it's latter
I don't understand your conclusion.
Yes, Manhattan distance exists, it has a name. But I don't understand how having a name makes it faster "a straight line distance" also has a name, euclidean distance. And always euclidean ≤ Manhattan.
So if on both routes you go at the same speed, it is faster to take the one of the euclidean distance.
Well, we were literally walking in Manhattan when it came up, and couldn't take the euclidean straight path. We could only walk on the grid of streets.
(This is setting aside factors like waiting to cross, or a busier street)
Ah. I originally missread your original comment.
Yes, in a grid where the Manhattan distance is the minimum one, taking a single 90° turn is the fastest, since that path will have the length of the Manhattan distance.
However, it's not the only path. The "ladder" one you said will be the same length.
While we are at it, if you wanna search for more. The same flawed assumption of "a ladder approximates a straight line" can also lead to π=2. Since you can enclose a circle in a square (Wich has perimeter 4R), then fold the corners recursively so there is a "stair" along the circle's perimeter. That "stair" would have a length of 4R, but the circle's perimeter is 2πR.
Love this. People who display like trophies the times they were wrong have learned one of life’s simple truths: there are no trophies for being right, just crappy knockoffs of the learning process one forgot.