Full Picture

Extension usage examples:

Here's how our browser extension sees the article:
Код будущего
Source: futurecode.rustest.ru
May be slightly imbalanced

Article summary:

1. Vasya conducted 8 experiments to measure the electrical resistance of various circuits, recording the resistances R1 and R2 in a spreadsheet and calculating the total resistance R using a formula.

2. In the fifth experiment, Vasya accidentally deleted the measured value of R2, but he had already built a graph using the data from previous experiments.

3. To restore the deleted R2 value for the fifth experiment, Vasya can use the graph he built with the data range (A2:A8;D2:D8) to estimate and input an approximate value for R2.

Article analysis:

The article titled "Код будущего" discusses Vasya's experiments to measure the electrical resistance of various circuits. The article provides a spreadsheet with data from 8 experiments conducted by Vasya, where he measured resistances R1 and R2 and calculated the total resistance R using a formula. However, there are several issues with the content presented in the article.

Firstly, the article lacks context and background information on why Vasya conducted these experiments or what their significance is. Without this information, it is difficult for readers to understand the purpose of the experiments or their relevance.

Secondly, there is a lack of explanation on how Vasya calculated the total resistance R using the formula provided in column D. The article simply states that he used a formula without elaborating on what that formula is or how it works. This lack of detail makes it challenging for readers to follow Vasya's methodology.

Furthermore, there is an error in the data presented in the spreadsheet. In experiment 8, there seems to be a mistake in calculating the total resistance R as 80 Ohms, which seems unusually high compared to the other values provided. This error raises questions about the accuracy of Vasya's measurements and calculations.

Additionally, the article mentions that Vasya accidentally deleted the measured value of R2 for experiment 5 but fails to provide any explanation on how this deletion occurred or how it impacts his research findings. This missing information leaves readers wondering about the reliability of Vasya's data and results.

Overall, the article lacks critical analysis and thorough explanation of Vasya's experiments, leading to confusion and uncertainty about the validity of his research findings. It would benefit from providing more context, detailed methodology explanations, addressing errors in data presentation, and discussing potential implications of missing values on research outcomes.