Tell Me You're An AI Without Telling Me You're An AI

Content V rigght the area of your graph where the cart was moving at a constant velocity on the flat pat of the graph which should have a constant negative slope. This is where the cart was not accelerating. 11 12. 13. 14. Use the cursor, tap and release where it begins, then drag to where the run ends and again tap and re You should now have the area highlighted where the cart was moving at a constant velocity. Press menu > 2: Data - 5: Strike Data - 2: Outside Selected Region verify that vou have selected the portion of vour eraph that shows the can mo vita a consrant veocin° n should be a line rising from left to right. If vou need to reselect do that now 15. 16. Press menu -> 4: Analyze -> 6: Curve Fit -> 1: Linear in the window that pops up record the slope (m) value into Table 2, this is the measured velocity. Ignore the slopes negative sign. The sensor measures obiects moving toward it as going in a negative direction. 17. Repeat steps the previous steps for vour other trials 18. Table 2 save your work on the calculator; press doc › 1: File -> 4: Save Run Height Measured v (m/S) 19. Submit your work; press doc -> 1: File -> 6: Send (m) Observations 0.100 20. Did the cart's velocity decrease when it was released from the lower 1.88 marks? It so, why do you think this may have happened? 2 0.075 ,953 21. acce era Use your measured (Table 2) and theoretical (Table 1) values to compute the percent % difference measured. theoretical k 100 ditterence for each run rhonrorical 0.050 4 0.025 .830 .603 Run 2 з 4 Height Measured v (m) (m/s) Table 3 Theoretical v (m/s) Percent Difference 0.100 1.188 ,245 984% 0.075 953 1.187 412% 0.050 830.125 5649 0.025 603.066 99581 Calculations: table 1 22. Were you successful in predicting the velocity of the car at the bottom of the ramp? NO. Absslutely Use the mass of the cart and g = 9.8 m/s? to theoretical gravitational potential enerov (C the 10 cm (0.10 m) height. Use the measur cart for the 10 cm heicht (Run #1\ to calcu energy (KE) of the cart. Record this inforn Calculations: 25. How does the gravitationa potential er 26. Based on vour results. did all of the in 27. If there is a difterence between the caused the ditterence: Synthesize 28. What was the independent varia 29. What did you measure? 30. what was the result when vou Error Analysis 31 What were the sources of err Conclusions 32. Did the initial height of the 33. Do your results support yc Case v2 Case

Machine learning engineers sweating nervously as they run the same training algorithm for the 47th time with slightly different parameters! Einstein's definition of insanity hits way too close to home when you're tweaking hyperparameters at 2AM hoping for magical results. The monkey's side-eye perfectly captures that moment when your neural network still has 98% error rate despite your "brilliant" adjustments. Gradient descent? More like gradient distress!

Control engineers having a field day with this one! The left shooter is decked out with fancy high-tech gear representing complex control algorithms like Model Predictive Control (MPC), Linear Quadratic Regulator (LQR), H-infinity synthesis, and all those neural network goodies. Meanwhile, the right shooter with just a basic pistol represents PID Control - that simple, reliable workhorse that's been keeping our thermostats, drones, and industrial processes running since the 1920s. Despite all our fancy mathematical advancements, sometimes the simple PID controller (Proportional-Integral-Derivative) still gets the job done just as well! It's like bringing a calculator to a math competition while everyone else lugs in supercomputers. Engineering's greatest flex is knowing when simple is better than sophisticated!

The pinnacle of mathematical rigor has finally been achieved! Forget peer-reviewed journals and centuries of mathematical proofs - apparently all we needed was Reddit users to establish fundamental number theory. The meme brilliantly captures how AI systems sometimes cite dubious sources with the same confidence as established theorems. Sure, the Gelfond-Schneider theorem (a legitimate result about transcendental numbers) is mentioned, but only to "corroborate" what Reddit already knew! This is like saying "gravity exists because my cat always lands on its feet, and this is supported by Newton's laws."

When your AI-generated chemistry mechanism has "besr substututerd" instead of "best substituted" but still manages to include carbocations and radicals correctly. Organic chemists can sleep soundly tonight knowing that spelling errors will save their careers from automation. The machine knows the reaction, but can't proofread to save its life. Classic case of high theoretical knowledge, low practical application - just like that one postdoc who keeps setting off the lab alarm.

Content MATH MATORS TRYINGTORESIST TETINGTHEIR TITLECOUSTI THAT THEY DON'T HAVE A FRIEND "GROUF" 4-34 € BUT RATHER A FRIEND SET DUE TO THE SET CONTAINING ATI OF THEIR FRIENDS NOT BEIG DEFINED AS A PROPER ALGEBRAIC STRUCTURE imgflip.com