fishos
@fishos@lemmy.world
- Comment on If I invented a shirt that caused cameras to be damaged when filmed/photographed, would I be committing a crime by wearing the shirt at events with cameras? 1 day ago:
So I tried watching it and never saw them close the camera app or restart the phone, so again, waiting on some actual proof with some science behind it rather than “dude totally said so”. That only proves that the software controlling the picture adjustments has been sent out of whack(as evidenced by the fact that it would show true colors eventually when pointed at something else). If the pixels were “dead”, they wouldn’t reset. We have a separate phrase for that. It’s “stuck pixel”.
- Comment on If I invented a shirt that caused cameras to be damaged when filmed/photographed, would I be committing a crime by wearing the shirt at events with cameras? 2 days ago:
This is my thought: unless everyone uses it, they just have to track the one glowing dude. Eventually you’ll be in front of a camera or person who will identify you clearly, and it will be that much easier because you’re glowing.
- Comment on If I invented a shirt that caused cameras to be damaged when filmed/photographed, would I be committing a crime by wearing the shirt at events with cameras? 2 days ago:
Even that was debated. No one proved it continued when you took another video, just that it broke the video of the lidar itself.
- Comment on functional 2 weeks ago:
No, it’s not a typo. I’m pointing out that even if they have no eyes, they’d still have sensory input and within that input you’d still find “visual descriptions”. You can still describe something as square or round or “emanates this wavelength of light” or “this object is 5m away from me” without eyes. Eyes are not a prerequisite for describing things and if they are space fairing, they’ve figured out something. You wouldn’t be able to build a ship without some system in place. So sure, they may be vastly different, but some common things have to exist. And math will always be one of those. Change your number system and ratios still stay the same.
- Comment on functional 2 weeks ago:
No, it’s not a typo. I’m pointing out that even if they have no eyes, they’d still have sensory input and within that input you’d still find “visual descriptions”. You can still describe something as square or round or “emanates this wavelength of light” without eyes. Eyes are not a prerequisite for describing things.
- Comment on functional 2 weeks ago:
If they can’t “see”, then how would they every travel intersimensionally? Seriously, they’ve have some form of sight sense, even if it’s braille.
And the point is that math is indeed universal. The ratio of a triangle will never change. And again, if you’re a space fairing civilization,you’d have figured out triangles. You’re confusing differences in culture with basic rules of the universe. It’d be like saying “what if they don’t know what gravity is?” like they just somehow float around because they’re ignorant of the laws of gravity.
- Comment on Resources 2 weeks ago:
So you’re a condescending asshole. That’s all. I’m not gonna engage with you further. Have a day as wonderful as yourself.
- Comment on Resources 2 weeks ago:
Absolutely.
Also, whenever I see “humans only really need X” I always think of Bill Gates saying no one will ever need more than 640kb of RAM. Sure, today no one will, but tomorrow someone who was held back by that previous number will see the new number and be able to complete a new task and suddenly that will be the new “baseline”. A 1.4mb floppy used to store dozens/hundreds of text files. Now a .jpeg takes up more space. You can’t just settle on some number without commiting to becoming left behind as things progress.
- Comment on Resources 2 weeks ago:
Someone else posted what it means. It means 10m² living space per person, 4 people share 20m² for bathroom and kitchen, you don’t eat meat, you wash tops every ~3 days and bottoms every ~14 days(laundry is shared with ~20 people). Something like 4 people are expected to share a laptop with specs that were cutting edge 15 years ago.
It is a MAJOR downgrade from how most people live, even those in poverty, and is just not appealing to all but the most minimalist of people.
- Comment on Why doesn't the Trump administration simply edit the Epstein files and release them? 4 weeks ago:
Something I didn’t see mentioned: say you make a fakenlist, redacting the people you want to protect. What about the people you are now throwing under the bus? First your fake evidence has to make it past all of their lawyers scrutiny and hope you’re not revealed for your con, and then you have to hope that these people don’t have evidence that they can use to throw you under the bus as well. Releasing anyone’s name is likely to cause many more names to come out and the domino effect is way too unpredictable. It’s truly some mutually assured destruction.
- Comment on >:( 1 month ago:
Yes, and I’m here criticizing “actually existing science”. That’s exactly my point. It’s not “real science” when it’s injected with politics and emotions like that. It’s biased in a way science shouldn’t be.
- Comment on >:( 1 month ago:
Wtf are you going on about? I’m talking about changing the name of a plant because it’s discoverer was a racist. Nothing about politicians or pedophiles. Ffs, some of you have brain rot as bad as the MAGA. I’m literally saying that history should remain accurate and not try to whitewash away the negatives.
- Comment on >:( 1 month ago:
I think you’re confusing “politics injected into science” with science. Science is data and analyzing it. Pretending someone didn’t invent something is removing data points and I’m pretty sure science calls that fraud, just like we call the studies that found cigarettes healthy to be frauds, or the oil companies to be frauds. 2 wrongs don’t make a right.
- Comment on >:( 1 month ago:
Remember, it’s only revisionist history if it’s the history you don’t like.
- Comment on >:( 1 month ago:
“unless you’re a part of the community fuck you”
I can see why it got heated…
- Comment on >:( 1 month ago:
Wasn’t this more about taking away the names from a bunch of people who in hindsight were terrible people? I remember something awhile back about people getting upset because some groups had decided that if you had a shred of negativity in your past, you weren’t allowed to discover and name things. I believe they were trying to change a bunch of names “to not honor the original person”.
That didn’t feel like science so much as politics and I get why some would be against that.
- Comment on make fantasy great again! 1 month ago:
And I’d do it again you fucking neckbeard. I don’t owe you shit. Don’t start a conversation trying to be a know it all douche and you wouldnt get treated like a know it all douche.
Now, you have 2 choices: you can stay here and keep responding and prove you’re a retarded troll…
Or you can fuck off. I think I already made it pretty clear that I value your opinion lower than pond scum, so what are you hoping to accomplish?
But go ahead, maybe next time I’ll have AI write my insults for me. You can choke on that slop.
- Comment on make fantasy great again! 1 month ago:
If I had said I searched it it wouldn’t be any different.
Get off your high horse and honestly, fuck you. You’re just a troll.
My comment also asked for the title and actually got that as a response.
All you’ve done is shit everywhere and show what a collassal jackass you are. Read the room. No one gives a shit. We’re talking about the game and you’re going off on some stupid half baked AI tangent.
Go touch some grass.
- Comment on make fantasy great again! 1 month ago:
Thanks!
- Comment on make fantasy great again! 1 month ago:
Yes, and I was hoping it would find articles or game descriptions that would give it an answer. I wasn’t expecting magic. I was expecting it to pull from its sources and regurgitate an answer. GTFO of here trying to “wElL AcKsHuLly, AI is…”
Crazy of me to think that in all the games journalism it’s pulled from that it might know. For the record, the answers it did give me were close and it was able to articulate why those answers might not be right because they didn’t meet all of my criteria and it elaborated as to why. The answer I got was actually fairly helpful, unlike whatever you just dumped out.
- Comment on make fantasy great again! 1 month ago:
Adding to the requests for a name. I put your post into Gemini and it gave me a few choices, but all clearly wrong, before giving up and saying “it must be some obscure indie title”.
- Comment on Youtuber Geekerwan has find the motherboard of Switch 2 and after reverse-engineer it have simulate the performance on a similar PC 3 months ago:
If you’re gonna post spam, at least spell it right.
- Comment on bork BORK 3 months ago:
You know how notifications work, right? Like, I’m taking a shit scrolling through things. So I’m literally shit talking with you. Enjoy that mental image.
- Comment on bork BORK 3 months ago:
Nah, I get a notification, skim your comment, then post whatever bs feels like it will annoy you the most right now. Takes like 5 seconds of my time. Here I go again!
- Comment on bork BORK 3 months ago:
Oh I don’t even read what you’re saying anymore and just respond with blatant trolling that your too dense to notice.
- Comment on bork BORK 3 months ago:
Nah, I just get a notification and I can do basic math on dates. It’s really not that complicated.
- Comment on bork BORK 3 months ago:
Lol wut? You spent 3 days to think of that? Ok…
- Comment on bork BORK 3 months ago:
Yes, I would agree that the conversation were having is useless but you sure wrote a lot of words…
- Comment on bork BORK 3 months ago:
It’s not equivalent though. It’s a grey wolf made to look like a direwolf. If they’d crispered a grey wolf into a dire wolf, that would be one thing. This is not that. This is basically a designer breed at best.
- Comment on Are Nintendo's $80 online game prices a result of tariffs or is Nintendo just using them as an excuse to price gouge as corporations do? 4 months ago:
Ok, disagree. Show me that games aren’t better. Show me that they aren’t bigger with better graphics, more features, longer stories. Oh yeah, you can’t. So disagree all you want lol.
Also, I’ll just point out again with wages: ok, so cars, houses, everything else has gone up. So explain in economic terms why a luxury good shouldn’t too? I’ll wait. You’re arguing economics of society. That’s a much bigger issue. But please, explain. I’ll wait. I expect more than a few paragraphs, by the way.