Buddahriffic

@Buddahriffic@lemmy.world

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨SBA #119 maths⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago⁩:

  I guess the joke is that it wasn’t an ambiguous expression in the first place and that pedmas/bedmas wasn’t the issue, or rather using just it here is the problem?

  When you have multiplication expressed as numbers joined without a symbol, that takes precedence at the current layer, where layers are created using brackets, fraction symbols, superscript exponents and concatenated multiplies.

  I’m not sure this resolves all ambiguity, but it simplifies the rule to just doing multiplication/division before addition/subtraction. It seems simple enough in my mind, so I’d need to see a counter example if it does break down.

  Though I hate how mainstream math problems/puzzles always end up being an order of operations problem, which I’d argue isn’t even math but more of a metamath thing. If you’re using math to solve a real problem, the correct order of operations will be determined by logic, not any conventions.

  Like if it takes you 5 seconds to get in your car and 12 seconds per km traveled, and 5 seconds to get out of your car, if you multiply the 10 seconds to get in or out by the distance, you’ll have a wrong answer. It’ll always be distance traveled in km times 12 seconds/km plus the 10 seconds, and the math works on the units as well as the numbers to show you did it in a way that makes sense.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨wriggidy wrekt⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  I think he’s just backup for the triangle-standers there to support Grant and Sattler, but you can see all 6 of them standing in perfect form, so the poor kid probably just got bored waiting for one of them to go to the bathroom. He was supposed to have tarp ready in case of a random windstorm or helicopter, but that almost never happens so instead he was just daydreaming about giant chickens.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Hail corporate (they did it tho)⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  And there’s a noticeable drop in quality. Not to the point that I’d say they aren’t worth getting, just noticeable. I’d say they are something like 50% the price for 75% the quality.

  And to be more specific, I’m talking about a breadth of quality issues, from piece durability, to how consistent the fit is, to how easy the combination steps are structurally (as in some steps from the knockoffs require figuring out where you need to hold the parts for support or where to apply force to avoid collapsing another part of it as you build it up).

  Lego has it down to a science and there’s more to it than just the physical shape (which itself is easier said than done and requires a certain level of precision).

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Literally exactly how it works, too.⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Oh yeah, don’t get me wrong, consciousness is probably the least explainable thing whose existence I’m aware of. But the gap in our knowledge doesn’t automatically mean it’s something that exists outside of the rest of the laws of physics. To scientifically show something is true, you need to disprove the other possible explanations (which is impossible because there’s always other possible explanations).

  The double slit experiment does not prove consciousness is a special case in how the laws of physics works. There’s actually two results in it: how the slits interact with the particle/wave and how the particle/wave interacts with the photo-sensitive plate. We always observe the plate but only sometimes try to observe which slit(s) it travels through. The variations I mentioned above were ways to separate the conscious observer running the experiment from the non-conscious “ovserver” which is the sensor.

  If it’s happening because of the consciousness being involved, then the sensor measuring but never recording shouldn’t affect the outcome and you should get a wave pattern. Similar for it it is possible to view the results but the observer decides not to, no matter the outcome. But then once they discard that conviction, then either it pops over to the particle result (if conscious observation means it has to act like a particle) or stays as a wave pattern but now you’ve been able to do what has never been done and measure which slits it traveled through and when to make that pattern. These variations are so obvious that they had to have been done, and since I’m not aware of conscious observation being proven to affect the outcome (as opposed to all observations require interaction, which can affect the outcome, no consciousness required), I assume they just got the particle result as long as the sensor was doing anything at all.

  That one possibility is powerful, that deciding to do something can change how something behaves. It could be used for FTL communication and arbitrary prediction of the future, which makes me inclined to believe that it doesn’t work that way.

  All that said, I do agree that it could be the case that consciousness is as important to the laws of physics as all the other things but confounds every attempt to measure it. I’d love to believe that, even, and a part of me does. But without anything definitive, the other part of me will hold on to the thought that it’s just wishful thinking.

  That’s also part of the reason I pushed back. I’d love for someone to “well, actually” and prove something about consciousness or even just show me a new argument, so I’ll bring up the parts that make me skeptical or explain the way I see it. I want to believe.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Literally exactly how it works, too.⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  One of the claims of the more psuedoscience “quantum mechanics” is that the future can affect the past. So the intent to check the data if there is a wave pattern would cause there to not be a wave pattern on its own, otherwise there would be a contradiction.

  But, as the other commenter mentioned, it’s a moot point because it’s the sensor is the “observer”, and it’s not “being observed” that affects the outcome, but “interacting with the wave/particle to generate the data that may or may not be observed by a conscious”.

  The profoundness of this, if it were the case, would be to imply that there’s something special, different about consciousness vs all the other non-conscious interactions out there, that this existence is for us rather than us just being here in this existence. But quantum mechanics doesn’t actually say anything about consciousness, at least not at this point, and probably not any time soon because it isn’t even really looking at that problem.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Literally exactly how it works, too.⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  The wave pattern is on the photo plate, the data that never gets looked at is from a sensor on one or both slits that measures whether the projectile passed through that slit.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Love when emoticons get translated to emojis, I love the modern internet⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Yeah, the :P version includes some mischievousness that the icons don’t capture. It’s like banter vs goofing around. They are similar but not quite the same, so the icons miss the mark.

  For me, it kinda personifies the whole corporate approach to existence, where their understanding is close but also misses the point in very fundamental ways. Like a charicature of itself.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Literally exactly how it works, too.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Does the result of the experiment change if there’s a sensor active that records data to a hard drive that no one ever looks at and it just gets deleted? Does the result change again if someone decides that if they get a wave pattern, they will interrupt the deletion process and look at the data?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Who's in the wrong here?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  If grey’s other opportunity didn’t work out, they probably would have unashamedly reached out to green again for a new date, if that exchange hadn’t happened.

  Non-zero chance they will anyways, especially if grey is a guy.

  Though I had a woman get surprised and upset when I declined a 3rd reschedule after she went uncommunicative twice when I asked the “we still on today?”. Apparently she didn’t have a mobile plan or internet at home and had to go to some public WiFi to communicate and both times had shit come up with her kids, though the second time was her son’s birthday party, which isn’t something that generally just pops up on you by surprise. It’s not even punishment, just the emotional rollercoaster before we even had a first date killed any interest in having a good relationship with her, just like that cancelation message in the OP would have.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Who's in the wrong here?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Though if that were the case, I’d figure they’d clear that up rather than no reply and posting the screenshot.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Fairfolk.jpg⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Lol yeah, I should have included that the emotional immaturity was such that they believed wanting revenge on a group for things they had nothing to do with or for reasons of jealousy/envy was normal. It was an attempt to continue your joke that the story creators were didn’t even have the logic to consider that angle.

  Or they were smart enough to make up horrifying stories that would stick with people and prevent them from doing dumb shit like going to play in a swamp and just saying “don’t play in swamps” will make some people even more likely to play in swamps to prove they can.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨How worried should we be about hantavirus right now?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  It doesn’t spread person to person so it won’t have the explosive growth and spread to all corners of the globe like covid.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Fairfolk.jpg⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  They come from a time before people realized that revenge was an endless cycle. Like the old testament was full of that, where good and evil were mostly framed in terms of “good people are us, evil people are our enemies, and it is good to cause suffering to the evil people. Also, sometimes circumstances make one of us evil, until we stone them or something”.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨[deleted]⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  Yeah, I guess it depends on the context. I’ve just always interpreted it as being more about how great the other person is instead of saying anything about the other person. Like that luck could be lucky the timing worked out that you were both available when you started seeing each other. But I can see tones that make it all about the other person instead, deserved or not. So whether that line is a red flag or not does depend on context.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨[deleted]⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  The first seems reasonable, until the reasoning is given, which reveals the whole message is batshit.

  Though IMO someone getting upset at being told they are lucky to be with the person they are with is kinda full of themselves and reading way too much into it. It’s more of a “I wish I was in your place without stating any intention to usurp it” than a “you don’t deserve to be in that place and must be there because things outside of your intent or control got you there”. It’s more non-threatening flattery towards your partner (as opposed to just flirting with her) than anything else and I’d consider taking offense at someone saying that to be a red flag even before he went off the deep end.

  It predicts the fragile ego stuff that follows rather than contrasts IMO.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨dont do it⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  DRAM*

  NAND is what (some) SSDs use.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Anon is Arthur Schopenhauer⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Posts like these make me glad I can sleep through pretty much anything. It might wake me up but I can just ignore it once I’ve identified it isn’t a threat of some sort and go back to sleep.

  Only time I can think of that this wasn’t the case was one time when I lived in a basement apartment, the landlord must have been installing hardwood floors or something right above my room as I was trying to sleep in. I eventually gave up and my coworkers were surprised to see me in early that day lol (still later than any of them, landlord wasn’t being an asshole with the time).

  That said, people who do loud things because they want attention are assholes (outside of specific contexts like concerts).

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Anon was bullied⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Yeah, this is ultimately why utopias are impossible. It’s not that we can’t come up with a fair system that would distribute resources fairly and not abuse any group for labour or anything else. It’s that no matter what system we come up with, there will always be power hungry fucks looking to abuse that system for their own gain and corrupt fucks that will take advantage of what powers or privileges that system grants them and use it to abuse and dominate others.

  It’s why we both need police and militaries in some form and why they so often turn into something just as bad or worse than what they were intended to prevent.

  Bullying is just the same thing at an individual or small group level.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Wonder why?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  I think covid might have put a pin in anyone planning to try to take the world using a virus. Two main problems:

  1. Once the virus is out in the wild, it is out of anyone’s control. It will evolve in whatever direction it will. Maybe it will escape the vaccines developed to keep their side alive. Maybe it will just become less deadly before it kills off enough people to collapse the enemy’s base.
  2. It looks like our immune systems are pretty good actually and those who get sick might just be the tip of the iceberg while most of the population gets immunity from asymptomatic infection.

  These two items work against each other. If you try to make a virus that will infect the entire herd, it might be more likely to also be able to attack you regardless of what vaccines you have. If you try to make a virus that won’t be able to escape your vaccine’s immunity, then the herd might just develop immunity themselves and the virus dies out after only killing a small portion of the population.

  So given that, I don’t think a weaponized virus is an effective tool to eliminate enemies with because it’s both too risky and too unreliable.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Get in the AI cube⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  If you keep stacking them high enough with a perimeter strong enough to keep them contained, the heat and pressure would eventually get high enough to liquify the ones at the bottom.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Future⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Though it would be cool to do that and then set up microphones to pick up the house settling sounds and see if there’s a correlation. If only those with the resources to set that up could be trusted to not abuse that access to data because I wouldn’t consent to some data firm having access to mics in my place.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Imperial system slander⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  I hope there was a bee involved in that picture.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨How do I drink more water?⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  A different approach to the not liking water, get a good filter. I used breta filters for years but a few years back installed an under sink reverse osmosis filter because the water here is so hard that it just tastes bad whether left hard or softened. I knew water could be better because I grew up with decent water and liked it even back when I preferred pop or juice.

  I wonder if anyone who claims to dislike water has only ever had subpar water. Note that I include a bunch of bottled waters in that, as I vastly prefer my RO tap water to any store bought bottled water, though some were on par with breta filtered water, though I’ve always hated the waste involved in buying bottled water (other than those big ones you can refill and stick in a water cooler, which can also be RO water if you have a good water place to get it from).

  If you do go for RO, make sure the system you get has an extra stage that adds some minerals back into the water. The RO on its own actually leaves the water too pure to be safe to drink regularly, as it causes osmosis to pull nutrients out of your cells (or something like that). I’d also only suggest it in an area where water is plentiful, as it does use more water than what you get from the filter, though adding a passive pump can improve efficiency.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨3.9% APR⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Decent chance you could get it financed for 0%, too.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨klown show 6 x-treme⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Imagine a screenshot where someone is chatting with copilot, asking it to help them find copilot and copilot replies with frustration that the user needs to be more specific.

  Alternate answer: just click any icon.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Extreme screen glare⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Investing in good blinds can help with this. If you picture strings and plastic or wooden panels that can get wrecked by kids or pets (or sometimes wreck the kids or pets), blind technology has come a long way since then.

  I got some dual layer ones where one layer is zebra stripe transparent/translucent and the other layer is blackout. Balanced such that I just need to lift or lower it and it stays put where I let it go. Helps with the heat, too.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Top-selling video games ever (2025)⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Yeah, I agree that, as far as f2p monetization models go, neither approach is bad on its own. I even liked the LoL one as I found it helped limit the choices right now so I didn’t have to pick out of like 100 characters, while still allowing for getting ones you liked, for free even if you were patient (and I was). HotS used the same model iirc.

  But Blizzard displayed unbridled greed and contempt for their users for how they handled that. It really should have led to a landmark case regarding consumer rights when purchasing a license to play a video game and rules for clauses like “we can change this agreement whenever we want”.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Top-selling video games ever (2025)⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  The difference is that I did buy the first game (at a AAA price even, iirc) but then they got rid of it when they released the second one and gave a big middle finger to anyone that gave them money for the first.

  Doesn’t really affect me personally, since I’d already decided to stay away from anything they offered for other reasons, but just another thing on the pile, though I hadn’t realized they then added a “oh but you can purchase the full thing again option” and thought that it worked more like DOTA2 for monetization (where all characters are free all the time and they monetize it with cosmetics and the plus subscription that gives data on the meta in game) rather than the LoL model.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Top-selling video games ever (2025)⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Ah so activision (blizzard) made a game that people paid for, then replaced it with a f2p version, then added the ability to buy a bunch of the paid shit in a bundle? Can’t say that surprises me if it is the case; they made it pretty clear how out of touch they were the moment their rep asked “don’t you have phones?” as if “can I buy and play this?” was the only question any gamer had.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Think Bold⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Sounds like you’re just feeding neighbouring kids to wolves.