|
| 27 May 2015 06:56 PM |
t = {} function CreateTable() local now = tick() wait(1) local later = tick() table.insert(t,(later-now)) end for i=1,10, 1 do CreateTable() end local sum = 0 for i,v in pairs(t) do sum = sum + v end print(sum/10)
-𝒩 | Anticodist, Scripter |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Qorm
|
  |
| Joined: 25 Jul 2010 |
| Total Posts: 1650 |
|
| |
|
cntkillme
|
  |
| Joined: 07 Apr 2008 |
| Total Posts: 44956 |
|
|
| 27 May 2015 06:59 PM |
Get out, everyone already knows this. Also, print(wait(1)) |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
L2000
|
  |
| Joined: 03 Apr 2008 |
| Total Posts: 77448 |
|
|
| 27 May 2015 06:59 PM |
its always going to be a bit off always!
its close enough tho that u can't rlly tell difference
cats r lyf |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
025110
|
  |
| Joined: 23 Nov 2012 |
| Total Posts: 57661 |
|
|
| 27 May 2015 07:00 PM |
| 1.0098491074995 263.01972087857 |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 27 May 2015 07:00 PM |
I was showing the average of 10 wait(1)'s ;c
-𝒩 | Anticodist, Scripter |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 27 May 2015 07:01 PM |
| wait(time) returns the time it actually waited, so you don't need to use tick. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 27 May 2015 07:03 PM |
As well, doing it via other methods just causing more time between the start/end. It doesn't happen instantly. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 27 May 2015 07:04 PM |
| why don't they make it actually wait 1 second... |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
chimmihc
|
  |
| Joined: 01 Sep 2014 |
| Total Posts: 17143 |
|
|
| 27 May 2015 07:05 PM |
k
*Spends 2 days calculating the average for 172800 wait(1)'s*
I script -~ chimmihc |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 27 May 2015 07:08 PM |
@Ab
Well for one thing, they don't have atomic clocks to power wait. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 27 May 2015 07:11 PM |
| It's actually your computers fault that wait(1) doesn't wait exactly 1 second. It's not like you really need it to be that precise anyway, and if you are doing some sort of calculations that require it to wait exactly 1 second, you can just get the returned value of the actual time waited, and use it to adjust whatever it is you're doing. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
cntkillme
|
  |
| Joined: 07 Apr 2008 |
| Total Posts: 44956 |
|
|
| 27 May 2015 07:16 PM |
I dare anyone to wait exactly 1 second. Exactly, you can't even do it and you expect a computer to be able to do it |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
|
| 27 May 2015 07:19 PM |
| If only time weren't such a confusing thing. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 27 May 2015 07:20 PM |
| Well, computers aren't really better at us, at least not yet, they can just dedicate all of their performance to doing very specific things, and computers can still wait 1 second a lot more accurately than humans, especially if they have an extremely accurate clock(e.g. an atomic clock.) |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 27 May 2015 07:21 PM |
Ok tell me why comptuers < us?
Computers know every single math equation possible in less than a second. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
cntkillme
|
  |
| Joined: 07 Apr 2008 |
| Total Posts: 44956 |
|
|
| 27 May 2015 07:23 PM |
Because everything the computer does, humans made that functionality. Also, brains are faster than the latest processor brand guaranteed! |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 27 May 2015 07:27 PM |
| I told you, computers can dedicate all of their performance to only certain tasks. Your brain has to do all kinds of things like take input from your senses and process that input; your brain has to control your nervous system. Your brain has all kind of work to do, while computers can just dedicate all of their processing power to a single task. Also, computers are extremely good at math, at least compared to us, but there are still a lot of things that computers cannot dominate us at. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 27 May 2015 07:29 PM |
| Of course, we have evolved over millions of years to get were we are today, whereas computers, at least electronic ones, have only existed for about a 100 years or so. That being said, they are already capable of outdoing us in many fields, and it won't be long before we make an AI so smart it destroys us all, assuming we don't already destroy ourselves before then. The thing about humans is even though we have intelligence that can dominate over any other none species, no other species has ever been stupid enough to destroy itself in nuclear warfare. I guess intelligence really isn't everything. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
cntkillme
|
  |
| Joined: 07 Apr 2008 |
| Total Posts: 44956 |
|
|
| 27 May 2015 07:31 PM |
tl;dr
Computers are not better, since how can something be better than human if human made it? Sure they might be 'faster' at computing but it can only do really basic things. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 27 May 2015 07:32 PM |
| Well, just because we made computers doesn't make us better. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
cntkillme
|
  |
| Joined: 07 Apr 2008 |
| Total Posts: 44956 |
|
| |
|
|
| 27 May 2015 07:33 PM |
When you think about how this all came from nothing but the natural Earth...
-𝒩 | Anticodist, Scripter |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 27 May 2015 07:35 PM |
@cnt Computers are > us - people who can build computers from scratch |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|