NateNate60
@NateNate60@lemmy.world
- Comment on It'll be ok. Nobody's going to judge you. 2 weeks ago:
-1 / 0 can be defined to be a special new number, ⭐.
This system of numbers is actually mathematically consistent and has all the properties that a number system should have. But using simple algebra, you can prove that in this new number system, ⭐ = 0. And then you can also prove that all other numbers equal zero.
This number system is known as the zero ring, and it’s the ring where the only number is 0 and the following operations are defined:
- 0 + 0 = 0
- 0 - 0 = 0
- 0 × 0 = 0
- 0 ÷ 0 = 0
- 0^0 = 0
All other symbols, including 1, 2, and ⭐, are just alternative labels for 0 in this number system. In other words, defining division by zero is essentially the equivalent of reality collapsing in mathematics.
So yes, you can validly define division by zero. You just get degenerate mathematics if you do. So be careful what you wish for.
- Comment on They eliminated cashiers and keep the profits. NY Democrats are fighting back. 2 weeks ago:
I’m saying the economics don’t matter because you can trick people into thinking prices haven’t gone up.
- Comment on They eliminated cashiers and keep the profits. NY Democrats are fighting back. 2 weeks ago:
4.90
Includes self-checkout discount. Price without self-checkout discount: 5.44
- Comment on They eliminated cashiers and keep the profits. NY Democrats are fighting back. 2 weeks ago:
That’s because you don’t have the mindset of a sleazy corporate lawyer who is paid $500,000 a year.
Try this: Raise all the prices by 10 per cent. Give the 10 per cent discount to self-checkout customers, as required by law. Pocket the extra for people who are stupid enough to use the self-checkout. Don’t forget to give a middle finger to your local elderly people or disabled people. They’ll now pay extra for the privilege of shopping.
- Comment on They eliminated cashiers and keep the profits. NY Democrats are fighting back. 2 weeks ago:
This is a good intentioned, well-principled idea, but it’s a ham-fisted implementation that isn’t going to have the intended effect and extremely easy to work around.
- Comment on oh bless yer heart, pepperidge farm 'members! 2 weeks ago:
I’m afraid I must inform you that I turned out to be right on this one.
nytimes.com/…/david-hearn-reflecting-pool-vandali…
- Comment on This oughta work 3 weeks ago:
It’s from a YouTube video (linked by the other reply) which discusses the mathematics of traffic flow and the optimal way to program AI drivers to reduce congestion.
- Comment on This oughta work 4 weeks ago:
Yes, electric cars are exempt from the registration games. But with China’s huge population, even if 80% of the city takes public transportation, that 20% who choose to drive still have enough cars to jam up the roads so they come up with these kinds of schemes to reduce traffic.
- Submitted 4 weeks ago to [deleted] | 24 comments
- Comment on Philosophy has peaked. Checkmate atheists 5 weeks ago:
Uh, yeah, that’s how rules work. If you do something that’s against the rules, you’ve broken the rules, regardless of whether anyone ever finds out about it. Morality isn’t a concrete thing that exists. It’s an abstract set of rules which are a creation of human society.
- Comment on Philosophy has peaked. Checkmate atheists 5 weeks ago:
I’m almost certain that the society the killer belongs to would answer “yes” to that question.
Unless, of course, that loner with no family is suffering from an incurable disease that is making their life pure misery, and resides in a place where medical euthanasia is legal. Then the answer might be “no”.
It’s a great example of how morality is relative.
- Comment on Philosophy has peaked. Checkmate atheists 5 weeks ago:
I would argue that the assertion “there is no source of moral authority other than the disapproval of others” is absolutely 100% correct. People’s moral compasses are informed by what the people around them think and culture that they live in. I just argue that there’s nothing wrong with that.
- Comment on Philosophy has peaked. Checkmate atheists 5 weeks ago:
At least for me, it seems that the assumption that there is no absolute source of morality besides religion is correct. Human morality has changed a lot throughout history, and lots of people have tried to dictate morality across borders and across time. The only ones who have succeeded in the slightest are religious leaders.
The argument is generally that one specific religion provides a source of absolute morality. The existence of conflicting religions does not invalidate that. It provides one source of absolute morality, not necessarily the only source of absolute morality. Anyone can claim something is a source of absolute morality. I can claim a magic 8-ball is a source of absolute morality. It does not mean that people will accept it, but I can claim it.
- Comment on Philosophy has peaked. Checkmate atheists 5 weeks ago:
This is a common “gotcha” argument that floats around the Internet. Essentially, it posits that under the teachings of a given religion (typically Christianity), there is a source of morality which is absolute. That might be the religion’s holy text, deity, or the religious authorities of that religion. In either case, there is one authoritative source which dictates what is morally correct and not correct for the entire universe from now until eternity.
So, the argument goes, if one is to reject the teachings of this or all religions, as irreligious people do, it necessarily means accepting that morality is inherently relative and that there is no absolute standard for mortality that is universally applicable. Therefore, as the argument goes, since one would have to accept that morality is relative, it can be framed relative to anything or nothing, and therefore there is no act which can be immoral relative to any reference frames in a context without religion. And therefore, nothing can be said to be immoral because whether it is moral is relative.
That’s the end of the argument.
To its credit, there isn’t anything wrong with this argument. But I do believe the argument posits that conclusion to be far worse than it really is. Suppose I am an irreligious person. Why is fornication with roadkill immoral? Well, because I think it is. It makes me feel bad and the reward gained isn’t worth the risk (the embarrassment of being seen in the act or catching some disease from it). Therefore I don’t do it. Is it possible that some person could think that it is moral? Yes, absolutely. But that doesn’t matter, because even if relative to one person’s moral compass an act is moral, doesn’t mean that people in general can’t just collectively reject that perspective and condemn the act as a group. In fact, human societies imposing their views on what is and is not moral relative to their own experience describes pretty much the entirety of human history.
- Comment on Why did/does Oman not raise a stink about Iran also closing their half of the strait? 5 weeks ago:
I guess that makes sense. If Oman can get a cut of the money while Iran takes the heat for tolling the strait then I would see that being an attractive deal for Oman.
- Submitted 5 weeks ago to [deleted] | 22 comments
- Comment on How come not all people are organ donors? It's not like they will need them where ever they go. 5 weeks ago:
I think few people would object to it if they were told it was an option, but the default is “no” in most countries and many people just don’t think to opt in.
- Comment on In a hearing on data centers, a resident of Tyrone Township, Michigan, asked a simple question: Have you signed a non-disclosure agreement? Officials refused to answer 5 weeks ago:
Contract law is a branch of the civil law and breach of contract gives rise to civil liability.
Let’s talk about legal bribes vs illegal bribes.
A “legal bribe” would be something like offering some crazy incentive to a councillor that is tied to the project being approved, like saying “We’re thinking about donating $100,000 to your re-election campaign” or “Your son should apply for our data analyst position with an annual salary of $100,000”. There is no explicit agreement, just a wink and a nod. But the person being bribed knows that the receipt of the reward is contingent on their acting according to the bribe offerer’s wishes. This form of bribery is legal in the United States and actually constitutionally protected according to the infamously fucked-up Supreme Court case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. If the councillor doesn’t do what the data centre company does, they’ll simply not receive the donation or their son won’t get the job.
An “illegal bribe” is just a classic bribe: an agreement that we will pay you X dollars cash if you do Y. That’s illegal in the US and carries strict penalties. But since it’s illegal, if the money has already been paid and the bribe recipient doesn’t do what was agreed, or the bribe offerer doesn’t pay after the bribe recipient does what they’re told, there is absolutely no recourse to the legal system because courts will not enforce contracts for illegal activities.
The NDA is probably a legal bribe. The company invites the councillor to discuss the data centre project at the fanciest restaurant in town, makes them sign an NDA that “all details of the meeting will remain confidential”, then discusses the possibility of the campaign donation or nepo job offer at the meeting. Then the company pays for the meal on the company card. All of that is technically legal, but of course, it’s horribly corrupt so if the locals caught wind of it, they’d run the councillor out of town. Entire municipal councils have been recalled from office before as a result of unpopular data centre projects.
- Comment on Still waiting for a response... 5 weeks ago:
True, true
- Comment on Still waiting for a response... 5 weeks ago:
That’s WAY too much mustard sauce. That hot dog is ruined.
- Comment on In a hearing on data centers, a resident of Tyrone Township, Michigan, asked a simple question: Have you signed a non-disclosure agreement? Officials refused to answer 5 weeks ago:
Michigan Constitution Art. 4 § 11 protects state legislators from liability for speech in the legislature. A similar clause that applies to local councillors would prevent these sorts of contracts because they wouldn’t be binding; the councillors could openly violate the non-disclosure agreement during the council sessions and would be immune from liability for breaching the agreement. That being said, being legally allowed to speak won’t persuade a person who doesn’t want to speak from staying silent. If the company in question offered a huge bribe to not talk, that’s not something that can be solved by the legislature. That’s a problem for the prosecutor’s office.
- Comment on Xbox wanted 77M Game Pass subscribers by 2026 — today it has less than half that 1 month ago:
That’s okay, Microsoft can just have Copilot subscribe 40 million times to pad out the numbers.
- Comment on Are there words in reverse order between two languages using the Latin Alphabet? 1 month ago:
There’s this related thing in linguistics which is quite fun, relating to the terms loanword and calque, which both mean “words originating from foreign languages”: The word calque is a loanword, and the word loanword is a calque.
A calque is a literal translation of the components of a word. One of the most commonly calqued words across all languages is skyscraper (in Chinese, it’s 摩天大楼, “sky-touching large building”). The word loanword is a calque of German Lehnwort (lehnen, to borrow + Wort, word).
A loanword is a word which is taken directly from another language and, with exceptions to fit the receiving language’s grammar and pronunciation, is not translated. An example of an English word which has been calqued into many languages is “okay”. The word calque is a loanword from French, where it means “copy”.
- Comment on oh bless yer heart, pepperidge farm 'members! 1 month ago:
No, I don’t think you’d follow through. I also think you knew you were going to lose that wager.
- Comment on oh bless yer heart, pepperidge farm 'members! 1 month ago:
If you think you’re right, you’re more than welcome to take me up on my wager and win $20 for the charity of your choice.
- Comment on oh bless yer heart, pepperidge farm 'members! 1 month ago:
You’re free to propose alternative charities. Maybe even a local food bank or some organisation. The point is: I’m happy to put my money where my mouth is, and I don’t think you are. In fact, even if you lose the bet, I don’t think you’d do it anyway. After all, I’m just some guy on the Internet.
I don’t have “faith” in the US legal system. I just know more than you about how it works and how it doesn’t.
- Comment on oh bless yer heart, pepperidge farm 'members! 1 month ago:
I’ll be willing to make a wager with you. If David Hearn is sentenced to at least 12 months imprisonment, I will donate $20 to an international human rights charity of your choice. If their case is dismissed, he is acquitted, or he is sentenced to less than 12 months imprisonment, you have to donate $20 to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Do you agree?
- Comment on oh bless yer heart, pepperidge farm 'members! 1 month ago:
Unlike what most people seem to think, the US criminal court system in a manner that would allow someone to go to prison for years for this. Trump prosecutors have a reputation for poor performance in court. Grand juries refuse to indict these defendants for obviously trivial crimes, and trial juries will acquit.
They tried to charge someone with assaulting a federal agent for lobbing a sandwich at a Border Patrol goon during a protest. The Trump-appointed chief prosecutor in Washington made a TikTok about how they were coming down hard on protestors. It went to trial. The jury acquitted.
- Comment on oh bless yer heart, pepperidge farm 'members! 1 month ago:
Regardless of whether any beatings occurred, when someone is imprisoned in your country, they are under your care, and you are responsible for them. It doesn’t matter whether it’s malnutrition, beatings, or if he just smacked his head against the wall on his own accord really hard: it is the responsibility of the custodian to ensure the good and proper health of those in their custody. That is the position of international human rights law. It doesn’t even matter if a prisoner decides to kill themselves, a death in custody is always the responsibility of the custodian and in that case it’d still be the custodian’s fault for allowing the creation of circumstances that allows prisoners to kill themselves.
It is not usual for a person to suddenly become comatose while in custody. And even if that did happen, it was North Korea’s positive responsibility to notify consular officials and the family of that, and deliver proper medical care to them.
- Comment on I will... 2 months ago:
Old investing adage: The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.
