I'd weigh the jug as-is, then weigh it full, and then weigh it empty; the proceeding trivial calculation of the original filled volume would be arguably more accurate.
The engineering way to do it. Why go through the trouble of perfectly modeling it if you can just test a few times. Either that or consider the jug a cylinder and add a safety factor of 2.
You can't weigh the jug, because it's in an image.
Anyone with a couple brain cells to rub together can figure out how full a physical jug of water is in a number of ways. The joke is that only an autistic person would try to produce an exact measurement based off an image.
Yeah you definitely could. Personally I wouldn't be bothered by it in a humorous context like this. But I know that's a term that does sometimes cause offence, so I chose the alternative.
This is the original email by the person who discovered this backdoor. But if you want you can search for xz backdoor and you'll find a lot more articles which explain timelines and other things.
https://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2024/03/29/4
== Observing Impact on openssh server ==
With the backdoored liblzma installed, logins via ssh become a lot slower.
time ssh nonexistant@...alhost
before:
nonexistant@...alhost: Permission denied (publickey).
before:
real 0m0.299s
user 0m0.202s
sys 0m0.006s
after:
nonexistant@...alhost: Permission denied (publickey).
real 0m0.807s
user 0m0.202s
sys 0m0.006s
Exactly - or the next action. The question “is the glass half full or empty” is a false dichotomy, the answer is: it is impossible to know without further info.
I didn't read super intelligence into it, I read overdoing and I found that it struck home. I don't know math either, but if I did, I would have done the same calculation.
This roughly checks out. I'm getting 66%, based on the methodology of cutting out the jug's shape from the picture and numerically integrating the filled and empty volume (e.g. if a row is d pixels wide, it contributes d^2 to the volume, either filled or empty depending on whether it's above or below the water level).
The thing I said I did? Yes; here's the processed image:
If you mean the math in the post, I can't read it in this picture but it's probably just some boring body-of-rotation-related integrals, so basically the same thing as I did but breaking apart the vase's visible shape into analytically simple parts, whereas I got the shape from the image directly.
Don't understand the joke? Most autistic people I know and me included are not that into math to that degree. Maybe someone with ADHD and autism may hyper fixate on it, but still it's not really something they would do usually?
People thinking autism is like a superpower or something don't really understand the disability.