Cethin

@Cethin@lemmy.zip

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨tuff enuff⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Exact timing, including air resistance, is far more than what’s required. Sure, everything about the orbits needs to be almost exact, but the fact we can predict exactly how the craft bounces about in the atmosphere, which is turbulent, and predict the landing this accurately is insane. Landing on the moon, on the other hand, is a lot easier to predict.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨When did the world change to the so called hashtag? When I was younger it was only the pound sign. So hashtag Taylor Swift still reads in my mind pound Taylor Swift?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  So it’s not a “hashtag” without the hash and the tag. #TIL

  Technically, yes. Practically, I don’t think this is true. If you ask 100 people under 20 what “#” is called, 99 or 100 will say it’s a hashtag. Language shifts, and that’s becoming the common name for it, even without it tagging something.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Is putting black beans in my chili a bad idea?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Anyone who considers themselves a chili purist is out of their mind. That’s one of the most insane stances to hold.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨PS5 Price increase collapses PlayStation console sales in Japan, with Xbox gaining⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  I’m willing to bet it’s at least in part to anchor a higher price for the PS6. It’ll “only” be a little more expensive than this, so why not buy it?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Does the engine a game uses factor into your decision to buy it or not?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Another good example for Unity is Escape from Tarkov. Yes, EfT is a Unity game. It’s hard to believe.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Some cheeses are luminescent.⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Yeah, dark in the same meaning as “the dark ages.” It’s referring to a lack of knowledge, not a lack of light. Both these terms have fallen out of favor though.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Some cheeses are luminescent.⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Well, it is a pretty poor indirect source. Just like the moon lighting things at night by reflecting the sun, Earth does the same.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨PlayStation Studios Removes Nearly All PC References From Websites⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  I don’t remember, but I think KJP is independent. They just signed a contract with Sony for money for DS/DS2. I don’t know, but I somewhat doubt they’d agree to total PS exclusivity. I think their games do pretty well on PC.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Hands-On with the Anbernic RG Vita Pro; A Unique Dual-Boot Handheld Finding Its Place (my review!)⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  From my memory of the original PSP, the stick wasn’t used as often as the d-pad. Obviously the right didn’t even have a stick. This layout is good for this use case. They could swap the sticks and the d-pad/face buttons, but then they’d be really annoying to use. Since they’re more used they should be the priority.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨How would an anarchist society work?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Yeah, it’s a goal, not a method. Even with a democracy/republic, there are so many different versions of it that exist. Is there a parliament? Is there a central leader? Who can vote? What happens if people can’t agree on who should be in charge?

  Anarchism is a large set of ideals. There are a lot of people who have thought about how to make it work. Any issue people have with it, I promise you it’s been considered. Everyone probably won’t agree on what the solution should be (because that’s always the case), but it has been thought about.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨How would an anarchist society work?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  That’s kind of the point. Anarchy doesn’t mean “no rules” or “no government”. It’s recognizing that people in power are either already corrupted or easily corruptable. It’s about creating rules to curb this. There are a lot of ways to do it, but anarchy, in general, is just about removing hierarchies. Those are the thing that causes so many issues, because it let’s people take advantage of it to benefit themselves.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Gottem⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Value indefiniteness is just solipsism. If particles do not have values when you are not looking, then any object made of particles also do not have values when you are not looking.

  They do have values. Their position is just a superposition, rather than one descrete one, which can be described as a wave. Their value is effectively a wave until it’s needed to be discrete.

  This was the point of Schrodinger’s “cat” thought experiment.

  Sure. That doesn’t make the general understanding of the thought experiment accurate. Once the decay of the atom that triggers the poison is detected, it’s no longer in a superposition. It has to not be in order for the detection to occur. The thought experiment is a meme because it’s absurd, and it is. That’s only because the entire premise is fundamentally flawed. It can’t exist as it’s implied. Also, even if this weren’t the case, that doesn’t actually prove it wrong. The double slit experiment shows that an interaction can change the result from wave-like to particle-like behavior.

  This view of “value indefiniteness” you are trying to defend is indefensible because it is literally solipsism and any attempt to promote it above solipsism will just become incoherent.

  I’m literally not. My entire point is that it isn’t a solipsism. Any interaction causes the waveform to collapse. Not a person observing it. The universe doesn’t care about what we describe as consciousness (or sapience, as it’s better described). It just does physics. The fact we don’t have a model for it doesn’t change anything.

  This experiment shows that behavior can change just from a measurement. How do you explain that while also not allowing superpositions? You make claims about this meaning a few things (which I don’t agree with), and yet you give no explanation of an alternative. Something is happening. How do you explain it?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Gottem⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  It is. I just always feel the need to comment this on these posts because the mystical understanding annoys me, and is surprisingly common. This meme doesn’t do that exactly, and it even has an accurate experiment setup.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Gottem⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Yeah… no. There are multiple interpretations, but basically it’s when position is needed to be known that causes it. Until then, the position is in a superstate of all possible positions, but for an interaction to occur it needs to be in one position. It’s not about choice. It’s about when information is needed for a physical interaction to occur. If one occurs then the particle must be at that location.

  Collapse happens when you step out of quantum picture with (mostly)linear equations and try to project the calculations onto the “classical picture”

  This (at least your wording) implies that physics cares about our mathematical models. It doesn’t. Quantum mechanics and “classical” physics are just ways we organize things for education. Though we don’t have a model for it, the unvirse is not using two separate models of physics. There is no “quantum mechanics” and “classical physics”. There is only physics. When a measurement occurs the universe isn’t looking at it to see if it should use quantum rules or classical rules. The interaction just occurs.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Gottem⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  To clarify, “observer” in the double slit experiment has nothing to do with humans, or consciousness, or anything like that. It has to do with it interacting with something on the other side of the slit. This thing, that creates (or “observes”) an interaction collapses the waveform. A human can watch or not. It doesn’t change the results of the experiment.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Gottem⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Yes, that’s correct! Interacting with the barrier that creates the splits we don’t care about, but yes, that collapses it too.

  Interacting with the surface we’re measuring in all the experiments. It doesn’t change, so it shouldn’t be effecting the results. It does collapse the waveform though, which is how we measure it.

  Detecting it at the slit is the part that changes. If we don’t do this, we get wave-like behavior, because there’s no interaction until it hits the surface at the end. The wave can pass through both slits without any interaction. If we put in a detector, then it must interact with that to pass through, so it collapses the waveform and behaves like a particle at that point. This means it must be at one slit or the other, and not both.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Gottem⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  I totally agree. “Observe” was a bad choice of words, but it stuck. It should have been “interacted with”, or “measured”, or something like that.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Gottem⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  I’m aware. I just hate the mystical way things like this are treated, and there’s a lot of uninformed people. I don’t care that the meme is wrong. I care that people believe it the experiment says something other than what it says, which is already really cool.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Gottem⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  No, not the slits. How the “observation” is done is you measure what goes through the slit with a detector just on the other side. The detector has to interact with the photons, so it collapses the waveform, making it behave like a particle, only passing through one slit. If you remove the detector then it has wave-like behavior, as the waveform only collapses once it hits the surface on the far end.

  The waveform collapses any time it interacts with something. The experiment just takes advantage of this by making it collapse in a way that creates a different result than if we don’t collapse it until later, where the waves can interact.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Gottem⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  I have to comment this every time people post it, because they don’t actually understand it. They only understand the mystical view of quantum mechanics, which isn’t real.

  Observation, in the case of this experiment, has nothing to do with humans looking at it. It has to do with the particle/wave interacting with something, which causes the waveform to collapse into a single particle. The reason this happens is because any interaction requires the information to be known, so it can’t be wave-like anymore. It has nothing to do with consciousness or anything like that. It only has to do with an interaction that requires information to be discrete.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Dream 🦕 Big⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  No, bulls didn’t exist then.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Anon listens to British music⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  That’s just turning the adjective into a verb. It’s literally the same thing. This is a common practice in the English language. It doesn’t change the meaning, only how it’s used in a sentence. If someone “cucks” you, that’s them doing the action that makes you a cuck(old).

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Dream 🦕 Big⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Well, back then there was more oxygen in the air, which allowed tornados to grow larger.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Google's Gemini will make its way into Dragon Quest X to power a "Chatty Slimey" AI companion, Square Enix has announced⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Is your comment written by AI? It seems weird, and we already went over most of what it says.

  Also, DQ runs on Nintendo systems. That makes me certain it’s cloud based.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Google's Gemini will make its way into Dragon Quest X to power a "Chatty Slimey" AI companion, Square Enix has announced⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Damn, your system is insane. Yeah, an RPG maker game is next to nothing compared to that. Still, Dragon Quest I think is 3D. It takes a lot more VRAM than RPG maker.

  I have 16GB VRAM, which is a lot for most systems. That’s easily consumed by an LLM. Any model that doesn’t use at least that much tends to perform pretty poorly, in my experience. That’s not mentioning how much heat it generates while running, which has to be removed from the system or it’ll slow down. Even if your system can handle it, it heats up fast. It’s great when I need a heater running, but when I need AC my room gets warm quick.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Google's Gemini will make its way into Dragon Quest X to power a "Chatty Slimey" AI companion, Square Enix has announced⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  I don’t know, but I’m willing to bet that economies of scale actually mean data centers are more efficient. This isn’t to say their use is justified, just that they’re able to take advantage of things a home computer can’t.

  However, having to run it locally means it needs to be much more limited. This is doubly true if you want to run the game and the LLM at the same time. The LLM is easily able to consume all resources your system has available if you allow it to, which means the game won’t run well (if it runs at all). This limits the use so it can’t just be shoved everywhere and constantly running, like it could if it’s sent to a data center. It’s not more efficient, just less consumption.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨What's the weirdest argument you've gotten into with someone?⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  What about the terminology then? My previous examples are usually covered under evolution, not genetic manipulation, and I think intention is the key difference. Evolution happens on its own, while editing requires an intention.

  I think evolution also covers selective breeding, which is intentional too. The “natural” form is natural selection. I think “Genetic Engineering” is the best term for the lab process. It’s not ideal, because I’d argue selective breeding could still be argued to be genetic engineering, but it’s the most accurate I think that exists. Engineering does imply a certain amount of control that could be argued isn’t met by selective breeding. Genetically modified organism (GMO) is a horrible term, though that is probably the most common term for the lab process.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨What's the weirdest argument you've gotten into with someone?⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Yeah, I do think the lab kind should be in a different category, but it shouldn’t be shunned. It’s a new way to do an ancient thing. The biggest difference is that genes from one species (or designed ones) can’t get into a different one naturally (very frequently or easily —viruses can, but that’s pretty limited without humans managing it). Usually the genes need to be present in a population for them to be selected for. Either that, or caused by a random mutation, which decreases the rate this can happen.

  It’s potentially dangerous, if it isn’t managed properly. It could introduce some issues that wouldn’t be with slower methods. However, it’s not a serious concern. It being modified in a lab doesn’t inherently make it harmful any more than all the other ways does. It’s just far more capable. It can solve some huge issues, and we shouldn’t shun it.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨What's the weirdest argument you've gotten into with someone?⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Selective breeding is genetic modification. That’s what makes the anger about the lab stuff so stupid. Sure, it isn’t natural, but neither is what we’ve been doing for thousands of years.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨I've had enough shimmying along ledges and squeezing through cracks sideways to last me a lifetime⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  It depends on how it’s done, and what’s important to the game, if you can do this. If you can see outside the elevator, it obviously has to be really moving a fixed distance. Also, if you’re supposed to know the height you moved it needs to be fixed, so the experience conveys that. The key is to just make it as long as, or longer, than your longest expected load time, or make the door stay closed until it’s done.

  For an example, Dark Souls 1 has to have fixed length elevators. The length is totally tied to the physical world. If it changed length to suit loading times, it’d throw off your sense of where you are. Dark Souls 2, many of the elevators are just trying to convey a sense of traveling, not a specific amount of it. The world is abstract, and the transitions are more about a feeling than the actual physical scale. (These two use the exact same system though obviously, but it’s a good example of different goals.)