CheezyWeezle

I think it would be possible to reach this conclusion. Using shorter surveys, like Google opinion surveys or something, asking people if they recognize 2-3 logos at a time, run a few hundred of those surveys over a few years and you could categorize each logo based on % of participants who recognized, anything over like 66% could be considered “generally recognizable” and then count how many generally recognizable logos you had.

I never said this was a bad value, but I think we all know that these prices will not remain. They will increase because people will pay it once they are locked in. And if someone buys a used car, they have to pay that subscription to get these features, ensuring the manufacturer gets a slice from used sales. I can understand the cost, but it sets a dangerous precedent. It should be one time fee that grants the VIN access to the severs permanently. What would be really nice is if we had legislation that requires companies with a certain amount of revenue to maintain services for older products so they can’t just pull the plug later anyways.

I can understand some of these features requiring a $5/month subscription. Anything more than that is absolutely insane. With roadside assistance (depending on what that actually entails) I could see that sevice being bumped to $15-$20 a month,

Whenever I see a checkbox or something that just says “Check here to confirm you accept our privacy policy” I think it’s funny because all I am legally agreeing to are the words actually in front of me. Sure, I agree with the standalone words “our privacy policy”. I’m not sure what that does for you, but i guess “our privacy policy” is an acceptable string of words.

Lmao you are the one who is actually tangibly misunderstanding the article. It clearly states that temperature RELATES to all forms of energy, which is true, but temperature is not directly affected by potential energy. Potential energy can, for example, raise the boiling point of a substance, but it does not actually change the temperature directly.

Since you clearly need a refresher on the fundamentals of heat and temperature:

https://www.houstonisd.org/cms/lib2/TX01001591/Centricity/Domain/5364/Thermal Energy.pdf

Maybe you should go read the article and actually read my comment. The article literally agrees with everything I said within the first few paragraphs. Negative temperatures do not and cannot exist under the classical definition, but the overall state of a system can reach a configuration that behaves like a negative temperature would, yet this is achieved by raising the temperature above what would tend towards infinity. Once again, it can be useful to represent certain configurations of systems of matter as a negative temperature with added context, and that’s why negative temperatures are a thing in science. It’s also why there are things like the summation of all natural numbers (1+2+3+4+…) being equal to -1/12. If you actually add up the natural numbers you get infinity, but ignoring that can yield useful results.

You are also absolutely wrong about temperature being dependent on all energy. Temperature is literally defined as the measurement of kinetic energy in a system. Are you actually suggesting that if I put an apple on an elevator, it’s temperature is going to be increased when I send it up? Or that if I inject that apple with cold diesel fuel it will heat up? Those things would increase the energy of the apple, but not increase the kinetic energy and therefore the temperature does not rise.

What makes you say that isn’t what an absolute scale is? It definitely is what an absolute scale is. For example, distance is measured on an absolute scale. Negative ten meters would be equal to positive ten meters. In the classic definition of temperature measuring the total kinetic energy of matter, a negative temperature would be equivalent to a positive temperature, as it is measuring how much the particles are moving. Similar to velocity (also an absolute scale), if a particle is moving at a particular speed, X, then moving at that same speed backwards would be -X, but it is still the same speed.

Negative temperatures are used to express something different from the classic definition of temperature, because the particles are not doing less than zero movement. Once a particle reaches absolute zero, it cannot move any less, but it can still have other properties that are directly tied to temperature change. Therefore, if purely expressing the classic definition of temperature, a negative temperature cannot exist, so any negative temperature would necessarily have to be equivalent to the same positive temperature. Of course, in any actual scientific conversation, the classic definition of temperature would be understood to be inadequate.

Lmao I was kind of making a joke there, it’s an absolute scale so a negative number can’t actually exist, i.e. |-10| = 10

Additionally, temperatures expressed as negative Kelvin aren’t actually negative Kelvin in reality (“reality” meaning the actual physical existence in our material world) because, as you pointed out, the material would actually be more temperate. Negative Kelvin is useful to represent systems where adding energy decreases the entropy of the system, rather than the standard of increasing entropy, but to relate it to the actual heat or energy of the material gets murky.

Even if it was somehow 10° below absolute zero, it would still be 10° above absolute zero

You may know the difference between a DAC and Amp, but you clearly don’t understand what I’m trying to say. I’m saying that a DAC doesn’t have its own power output. It literally takes a digital signal, and converts it to analog. In order for it to add any power to the signal, it needs to include an amplifier. Otherwise, the signal will always be a little bit weaker due to the power loss from traveling through the DAC. Most DAC units have at least a weak amplifier for this reason, but there are some units that are just a DAC. And the Amp part isn’t going to be controlling the digital volume, i.e. changing the system volume on your device. It will operate on its own volume control, so regardless of how limited the output is from your phone, it will still be made louder as it amplifies the volume independently of the phone. A unit that is just a DAC doesn’t have any way to amplify the signal it receives, so it will never be able to make it louder.

You said explicitly that the android system will limit the output of any DAC, but that is wrong on multiple counts. The android system will not limit the output of a DAC because a DAC itself just 1:1 outputs an analog signal converted from a digital source so there is nothing to limit. The android system will also not limit the output from an Amplifier because it literally is not capable of that. That’s like saying your water faucet can limit how hot your water can get when you boil it on the stove. An Amp increases the power of the signal after it has already left the phone.

Well the problem is that a DAC doesn’t have any power to it at all. What you are thinking of is an amplifier, which a lot of portable DAC units have in them, but not all of them do. For example, the DAC/AMP I have is the iFi iDSD Black Label, which has its own Amp that is controlled through an analog dial.

If your unit doesn’t have its own volume controls then it is likely just a DAC with no Amp, meaning you are limited to the power output of your source.