KillingTimeItself
@KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- Comment on Wage theft now outnumbers all other types of theft in the U.S., reaching $482 million 12 minutes ago:
i think it would be funny if we starting doing labor theft.
For every hour of unpaid labor, do one less hour of labor.
- Comment on near zero 17 minutes ago:
i would argue that you can probably independently define an ordering mechanism. And then apply it.
You can just pretend that 100 is 0. I see no reason this shouldn’t apply to everything else.
- Comment on Home Depot 4 hours ago:
this is some real shit
- Comment on near zero 7 hours ago:
and yelling at people who don’t understand, apparently.
I’ve committed the most heinous of crimes according to the internet, not understanding the joke.
Sorry i’m autistic lmao. - Comment on near zero 7 hours ago:
that could be it.
- Comment on near zero 7 hours ago:
im pretty sure most people have arms. An engineer almost certainly does.
- Comment on near zero 9 hours ago:
yeah but like, you don’t need to specify that one individual is naked. If that’s a required factoid of the statement, the engineer, mathematician, and physicist should also be naked. But there’s no mention of that.
Now i don’t have much experience in relationships, particularly inter personal ones, but to my knowledge, you are generally clothed most of the time.
- Comment on near zero 9 hours ago:
also, if the woman is naked, does that mean the mathematician, engineer, and physicist are also naked? Because that would make a lot more sense.
- Comment on near zero 9 hours ago:
as far as we can tell, mathematically, they are a given, and they never stop.
I’ll wait for you to find the end of pi.
- Comment on near zero 9 hours ago:
i would definitely be more suspicious of it. This is probably another paradox frankly.
- Comment on near zero 9 hours ago:
i think it would make equally as much sense, if not more, if the word naked was just removed.
It’s just fucking shoehorned into it.
- Comment on near zero 9 hours ago:
schrodingers engineer
- Comment on near zero 1 day ago:
that’s the vibe i’m getting, but it’s a really fucking hypothetical regardless.
“there are a fisher, a farmer, and a welder in a bar, on the other side is cthulhu” is basically how it’s worded
- Comment on near zero 1 day ago:
“I think I can get close enough…to engage in unspecified sex acts with this woman.”
that’s what i would assume, but then again it never states anything, so this is like walking into a fucking storage shed and seeing a colonoscopy going on. It’s just fucking weird.
- Comment on near zero 1 day ago:
engineers love research grants, well known behaviorism of an engineer.
- Comment on near zero 1 day ago:
i mean yeah, i guess so, but that’s not what im confused over.
I just want to know why specifically it was written with a nude woman? It never alluded to anything in particular.
- Comment on near zero 1 day ago:
no i just don’t fucking understand why the naked woman matters here.
Could be fucking anything, a pile of a billion dollars. Three turtles, or a goat, it’s the same joke.
- Comment on near zero 1 day ago:
i still don’t see what the point is.
- Comment on near zero 1 day ago:
why is there a naked woman?
- Comment on near zero 1 day ago:
i mean, mathematically speaking, every number that isn’t zero, is further away from zero, than the number before it.
So there is a point to the statement of “approaching zero” as well “near zero” and “about zero” since 100 probably isn’t about zero.
Also CS nerds would like to fight you about floating point values.
- Comment on Motivation 1 day ago:
i like how this is the academic version of “fuck you i’ll do it myself then”
- Comment on Autism 2 days ago:
incredible, what a fucking shitpost this is.
- Comment on Autism 2 days ago:
because that’s what the paper said, and i’m allowed to think whatever i want to think. Maybe i think the papers true because for the purposes of this thread, it makes my shitpost funny, maybe i think it’s true because i think the concept of sentience is bullshit.
Maybe i’m just lying and i don’t actually think it’s true, but i’m just saying it is for the statement.
- Comment on Autism 2 days ago:
i wouldn’t have done it if the paper didn’t say it was itself.
Arguably the paper here is personifying itself, our interpretation of it is dependent on whether or not we want to believe the paper or not. I’m not the one ascribing the emotion of sadness to the paper, it’s the paper ascribing it to itself. I’m merely interpreting what the paper says to be the probable truth here.
- Comment on Autism 2 days ago:
ok shitpost time.
Technically the paper is about the personification of objects in relation to autism.
If you do not read the paper it will be sad. Since it’s the paper being sad, and not you thinking that the paper will be sad, technically we could argue that the paper is just lonely and wants somebody to talk to.
- Comment on Autism 2 days ago:
lemme guess, this paper is probably pay walled also?
God i love modern science, it’s so much fun.
- Comment on Do you hate it? 3 days ago:
ah you know what, you’re totally right, it’s definitely a honey badger, i just couldn’t immediately tell because of the art style lol.
- Comment on The second matchup of the tournament 3 days ago:
that’s definitely one of the ways that statement can be made literal.
- Comment on Do you hate it? 3 days ago:
from my understanding they have rather short tails, and unless bears are a lot more like polar bears in the sense that they don’t have any fucking bones apparently, that seems a little out of proportion to me.
this could be based off of a real image, idk.
- Comment on Do you hate it? 3 days ago:
is the bear wearing a hat?