ada
@ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone
- Comment on We all know that Mr Beast, Logan Paul, and KSI are all horrible people. Why do they still have subscribers? 2 weeks ago:
I’m aware Mr Beast exists, but I know nothing about him. I mean, I would have assumed he is awful, because money does that to people, but I’d have nothing to back up my gut feeling.
And I’ve never heard of KSI…
- Comment on Would SpaceX continue to be immoral without Musk? 2 weeks ago:
The quote you gave suggests that companies are legally expected to maximise profit, but with caveats/nuance. It also highlights shareholder pressure towards the same goal.
If the claim is that fear of legal action doesn’t technically count as 'legally required ", then sure, I used the wrong word. But as I said elsewhere, it doesn’t change my point.
- Comment on Would SpaceX continue to be immoral without Musk? 2 weeks ago:
Boycotts aren’t pointless, because they force companies to change by attacking their bottom line/share value. It doesn’t make them moral, it just hits them where it hurts.
- Comment on Would SpaceX continue to be immoral without Musk? 2 weeks ago:
Companies are inherently immoral. Whether the pressure that creates that reality is from this particular case or whether it comes from self preservatio is genuinely irrelevant to my point.
Taking away Musk won’t make a company moral, because all publicly traded companies are immoral.
I don’t know why this particular case gets people ignoring the topic at hand to argue about it whenever it’s mentioned…
In providing an explanation for the immorality of companies, which was the context, 1
- Comment on Would SpaceX continue to be immoral without Musk? 2 weeks ago:
I answered it elsewhere. If you want real discussion, respond to that.
- Comment on Would SpaceX continue to be immoral without Musk? 2 weeks ago:
I answered elsewhere in the conversation chain.
- Comment on Would SpaceX continue to be immoral without Musk? 2 weeks ago:
It’s a consequence of the eBay vs Newmark ruling. Arguments against it are theoretical only and haven’t been tested, and would be next to impossible to achieve with extant companies that don’t already have advertised social priorities.
- Comment on Would SpaceX continue to be immoral without Musk? 2 weeks ago:
Publicly traded companies are legally required to maximise profit for their shareholders. There inherently immoral.
- Comment on ¿Qué carajo es esto? 2 weeks ago:
Al menos lo fue un oportunidad para practicar tu español!
- Comment on ¿Qué carajo es esto? 2 weeks ago:
The screenshot you posted of PugJesus is unrelated to the voting situation, except in so far as he left the fediverse, but then came back to post that comment.
- Comment on ¿Qué carajo es esto? 2 weeks ago:
It’s a Piefed feature that appeared when we updated the instance. I don’t think we can disable it completely, but when I get the chance, I’ll increase it to a stupidly large number to make it effectively unlimited.
- Comment on Is New York Times transphobic? 2 weeks ago:
Yes, they are. Vocally so
- Comment on Why don't smaller countries get together with other smaller countries and form a "bloc" that could go in the game of the big "Superpowers"? Instead of the US, RUS, and China all the time? 3 weeks ago:
Like the European Union?
- Comment on Does the USA have gifted schools or was Spider-Man Homecoming lying? 3 weeks ago:
I guess they just didn’t test those of us in country towns too far from a selective school!
- Comment on Does the USA have gifted schools or was Spider-Man Homecoming lying? 3 weeks ago:
I was a gifted kid schooled in NSW. My kid was schooled in QLD. I’ve never heard of these gifted schools.
- Comment on Would a disk shaped planet have uniform gravity like earth or would it vary depending on whether you're near the center or edges? 4 weeks ago:
Yep, as are solar systems. But when they collapse in to single objects, those objects end up spherical once they’re about a third the size of our moon (or even less than that if they’re icy/gaseous).
- Comment on If you had procreated with an opposite-sex clone and produced a child, would that child also be a clone? 4 weeks ago:
The Y chromosome doesn’t carry much of anything. It’s basically just a carrier for the SRY gene, and in most cases, it’s that gene that triggers the majority of the sexual differentiation that occurs in early development. The actual “code” for what develops and how it develops is there for male and female differentiation in all humans, and it’s hormones and other factors that control whether or not that genetic code is expressed.
And in this case, we’re talking about stem cells (ie, a cell that has the potential to develop in to any cell, but hasn’t yet done so), and then artificially triggering those stem cell to develop in to sperm cells. A trick that can be done because the genetic code for it to do so is already there if the conditions are right.
As an aside, this is also why hormone replacement for trans people lets them develop secondary sexual characteristics that they wouldn’t otherwise develop. The code was already there, it just takes the right trigger to get the code expressing (in this case, hormones)
- Comment on If you had procreated with an opposite-sex clone and produced a child, would that child also be a clone? 4 weeks ago:
If not exactly identical, would they be like twins?
The parents? Basically, as the only difference between them is a single chromosome out of the 26 we carry. There are slight genetic differences between identical twins, due to the accrual of mutations during cell division, but it’s smaller than a full different chromosome. That’s splitting hairs though, because both identical twins and our theoretical clones would be functionally identical.
If not exactly identical, would they be like twins?
If you mean the parents and their child, then they’d be somewhere between identical twin and regular sibling in terms of genetic similarity. Regular siblings on average, share about 50% DNA. Identical twins share 100% DNA. Our theoretical child in this scenario would share around 75% of their parents DNA
- Comment on If you had procreated with an opposite-sex clone and produced a child, would that child also be a clone? 4 weeks ago:
By definition, two people of different sexes can’t be clones
- Comment on Would you rather be reincarnated into a world of magic or reborn as yourself (with your current knowledge fully intact)? 5 weeks ago:
In that case, I’ll take “reborn with current knowledge intact” thank you!
Even though magic sounds tempting, if I can’t remember my previous stint, my reborn persona may as well be a completely different person!
- Comment on Would you rather be reincarnated into a world of magic or reborn as yourself (with your current knowledge fully intact)? 5 weeks ago:
Unless the magic comes with sex and gender fuckery spells, neither. I’m not really keen on doing a whole lifetime without access to trans health care
- Comment on [deleted] 1 month ago:
Wait, am I meant to announce my departure when I’m at an airport? I haven’t been doing that…
- Comment on POV: You just said something the Tesseract Developer didn't like 1 month ago:
tfw I’m on an instance without downvotes!
- Comment on Is there a fediverse service that access most fediverse networks? 1 month ago:
They’re also front ends. They don’t give you a single universal fediverse account that crosses fediverse platforms
- Comment on Is there a fediverse service that access most fediverse networks? 1 month ago:
Yeah. It feels like software from a previous generation that has cool functionality, but just doesn’t have the usability it needs to be the center of a daily fediverse experience
- Comment on Is there a fediverse service that access most fediverse networks? 1 month ago:
Friendica.
In theory, it’s perfect, and just what I think the fediverse should be, but it’s terrible to run as an admin.
- Comment on Where has the "www." gone? 1 month ago:
There’s two things at play here.
First, www originated in a time when the web was not synonymous with the internet. Gopher, FTP etc were a much larger part of peoples daily internet usage, and servers would have different subdomain names to account for that. ftp.tld.edu, gopher.tld.edu and www.tld.edu were all domains you might see for a single server for example. Then of course, the web grew, and the other protocols became less relevant, but the www stuck around. One of the reasons you’re seeing less of it, is because that tradition is slowly fading away given its loss of daily relevance.
The other reason you’re seeing less of it is that browsers often just hide it even when it’s there. And that of course, will create more future instances of servers just dropping it completely.
- Comment on Ate there more galaxies in the universe, than stars that can be seen from Earth with the naked eye, or with a telescope? 1 month ago:
There are about 100 billion stars in our galaxy. There are about 200 trillion galaxies in the parts of the universe that are observable from earth. Which is to say, galaxies outnumber the stars in our galaxy by about 20 to 1.
If we limit it to stars we can see with the naked eye, then instead of 100 billion stars, you’re down to something like 5,000 to 10,000 stars depending where on earth you are observing from. In which case galaxies in the observable universe outnumber the stars we can see about 20 billion to 1.
- Comment on Why does auto focus work so poorly when trying to take a picture through smudged glass? 1 month ago:
Oops, sorry, I assumed you were talking about a smudge on the glass of the lens, not a glass window.
In the case of a smudged glass window, that’s an issue for both types of autofocus, and it occurs because the glass is closer than the subject you’re trying to focus on. And due to the way the physics of light work, it’s easier to find focus on closer subjects than distant subjects, for the same reasons that your depth of field increases the further your focal point is away from your sensor. And because the smudge itself is something that provides sufficient detail for autofocus to work, if the smudge will often become the target of the autofocus.
There are a few ways of dealing with it though. You can step closer to the glass, so the smudge is within the minimal focal point distance of your camera. If it’s too close for your camera to focus on, it won’t accidentally focus on it. You can also change the active autofocus points on your camera so the smudge under an autofocus point. You can also drop the camera down to one autofocus point, move the camera to focus on the distant target without the smudge in the way, then half hold down the shutter button, and then reframe the shot whilst holding the shutter. That will keep the focal length set to where it was, but it won’t actually take the photo until you press the shutter the whole way in
- Comment on Why does auto focus work so poorly when trying to take a picture through smudged glass? 1 month ago:
Nothing, because that’s not what happens.