SkyeStarfall
@SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
she/they
- Comment on Also how do I know if it works? 4 days ago:
That’s not my experience in my local areas. I guess we just don’t tend to have strong winds, and you do see a ton of people with umbrellas doing just fine
- Comment on bold words 1 week ago:
Transgender, AuDHD, (secret third thing)
…I’m sure my 18 year old ass would process this information in a calm and reasonable manner, lol
- Comment on Malaka, philosophy is the deadlift of the mind 1 week ago:
The good place is a great introduction to philosophy
- Comment on Password 2 weeks ago:
The more AI they will use, the more jobler the cybersec specialists will be
- Comment on Stereotyping is wrong. 2 weeks ago:
It doesn’t seem appealing tbh
- Comment on Stereotyping is wrong. 2 weeks ago:
…would it??
- Comment on This MF is quadrupling down and dropping Alien files before dropping the full, unredacted Epstein Files. GODDAMN. 2 weeks ago:
I feel like that’s something a lot of people are just not thinking about for some reason
There’s a simple explanation for the weird videos, and why the government didn’t want to talk about them. And it’s just it being experimental military technology
- Comment on This MF is quadrupling down and dropping Alien files before dropping the full, unredacted Epstein Files. GODDAMN. 2 weeks ago:
The president of the US also said that tariffs are paid by the seller
So, you know, not a high credibility
- Comment on This MF is quadrupling down and dropping Alien files before dropping the full, unredacted Epstein Files. GODDAMN. 2 weeks ago:
What’s there to be excited about? There’s no reason to believe aliens ever visited earth. Exist somewhere in the universe, sure. I’m very excited for any news from observations in space or the mars rover finding signs of life, but not on earth.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and so far, all we’ve had are som shitty low resolution videos which very well might have been either video artifacts, atmospheric natural phenomena, or just experimental weapons.
- Comment on lol 2 weeks ago:
Really, it’s about laypeople using technical terms that they understand, and the industry actively encouraging it
It’s a mess and it sucks
- Comment on 3 weeks ago:
It is beautiful!
Sex is natural and not something that’s aesthetically inferior to other things
- Comment on The sun is a deadly laser... 3 weeks ago:
It probably would never appear green, due to the black-body radiation distribution. When the peak is at green, it just looks like white to us. Our sun is kinda a “green” star due to this
But it would go from blue to white to red. Similar colour progression that we can find in the distribution of stars
- Comment on Legal action over 'unfair' Steam game store prices given go ahead 5 weeks ago:
But for the games without DRM you can just download them and run the executable. Bypassing Steam
Sure, if you stop using steam you can’t re-download or update the game, but if the game didn’t have DRM, you can just keep copying the existing executable
- Comment on Womp womp womp womp 1 month ago:
Yeah, in a lot of fields it simply would pay more to go private lmao
Still, it feels more rewarding to contribute to the scientific body than to just make someone else rich
- Comment on No explanation needed 1 month ago:
I hate that this makes so much fucking sense
- Comment on "Oh wow a kryptonite radiation machine, I volunteer Superman to go inside! Doesn't feel so good does it?" 1 month ago:
It would still be extremely valuable, though
- Comment on aspirations 1 month ago:
Yeah, I remember th same thing as a freshman, it was not any different lol
- Comment on aspirations 1 month ago:
They don’t think that. The seemingly adults think that. So often I see people complaining about kids and their brainrot, and it’s not from the kids themselves
- Comment on Priorities 2 months ago:
Pretty sure it’s like insanely bad for you. It might straight up cause brain damage
So yeah, just smoke weed instead
- Comment on Is this true for Germans? 2 months ago:
It really is a funny feeling, where it looks genuinely awesome (in the literal sense) but at the same time is also horrifically destructive
- Comment on Off the Rails 2 months ago:
While you’re right, it’s also funny to say that god was a software developer under deadline pressure
- Comment on constants r fun 2 months ago:
That’s a diagram from the same article, actually
- Comment on You nomster! 2 months ago:
I would definitively notice immediately. It would just feel… wrong
- Comment on ‘Clair Obscur’ Leads The Game Awards 2025 Nominees With 12 Nods; ‘Silent Hill f’ Has Four Nominations 2 months ago:
I wonder, have you ever made a game yourself? I have
- Comment on Sea Level 2 months ago:
The big bang part is interesting, because, if humans become successful and manage to somehow make some sort of long-lasting archive that would survive on universal scales, we would be the ancients with old revelations to a potential future species. Able to impart knowledge that would have been undetectable for them, and an ancient map of the stars containing visions of countless other galaxies, and a peek into the very beginnings
Though, realistically, it’s likely that a hypothetical hyper-advanced technological species would have their ways of prodding the true nature of our universe, despite the greater challenges
- Comment on Christmas Animals 2 months ago:
Quick question, are you disabled yourself?
- Comment on Meanwhile Ball 2 months ago:
Wich turned it basically into an US exclusive product, and pretty much impossible to get outside of there
- Comment on I dunno 2 months ago:
Maths is so much more malleable and abstract than what you think it is. You really do not understand maths as well as you think you do, and I feel a bit sad for any student of yours that would wish to explore some deeper revelations of maths, just to be told “nope! That’s just how it is!” with no further thinking at all.
A lot of maths is chosen. Choices with good motivation, but choices nonetheless. So long as there not being contradictions or paradoxes, the formulation of a form of math is valid. Which is why you have different forms of maths with different rules.
And you really could use some more humility, it’s obnoxious when you act all so high and mighty and arrogant, with no interest in questioning your assumptions. Devolving into ridiculing the person you’re discussing with and a general vibe of “omfg I’m right you fucking idiot because I’m right how dumb can you get??”
Like, what is it that you want here, a book from the 700s of the one dude that invented arithmetics and told clearly “I chose this.”? You are making your arguments effectively unfalsifiable by just going “Nuh uh” all the time.
Get some humility and learn a bit about the foundations of maths. Like. Down to set theory. See for yourself what actually is the foundation. And, spoiler, it’s not a high school textbook. Hopefully I do not need to tell you how concepts are simplified for younger students, instead of overwhelming them with the complete knowledge of a subject.
- Comment on I dunno 2 months ago:
I mean, it is pretty clear here that you do not really understand the purpose of notation, nor what maths is. Notation is just a constructed language to convey a mathematical idea, it’s malleable
And yeah, it’s easy to just say “this page is wrong!” without any further argument. Nothing you referenced proved the convention as law, and neither is there any mathematical basis for any proof, because it simply is nonsensical to “prove” a notation. Have another source for this being convention www.themathdoctors.org/order-of-operations-why/ or math.stackexchange.com/…/mathematical-proof-for-o…. If you want a book about this, then there’s en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronshtein_and_Semendyayev that is cited by wikipedia. I’m sure you could also find stuff about this in a set theory book. Though good luck understanding them without sufficient experience in high-level maths
Really though, maths is so much more than “3+5=8 because that’s the correct answer!” But why is it the correct answer? In what context? What is the definition of addition? How can you prove that 1+1=2 from fundamental axioms? This is harder to answer than you might think.
- Comment on I dunno 2 months ago:
That’s a very simplistic view of maths. It’s convention en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations
Just because a definition of an operator contains another operator, does not require that operator to take precedence. As you pointed out, 2+3*4 could just as well be calculated to 5*4 and thus 20. There’s no mathematical contradiction there. Nothing broke. You just get a different answer. This is all perfectly in line with how maths work.
You can think of operators as functions, in that case, you could rewrite 2+3*4 as add(2, mult(3, 4)), for typical convention. But it could just as well be mult(add(2, 3), 4), where addition takes precedence. Or, similarly, for 2*3+4, as add(mult(2, 3), 4) for typical convention, or mult(2, add(3, 4)), where addition takes precedence. And I hope you see how, in here, everything seems to work just fine, it just depends on how you rearrange things. This sort of functional breakdown of operators is much closer to mathematical reality, and our operators is just convention, to make it easier to read.
Something in between would be requiring parentheses around every operator, to enforce order. Such as (2+(3*4)) or ((2+3)*4)