biddy

@biddy@feddit.nl

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨There is one uncleared level remaining in Super Mario Maker, with 18 days to go before the servers shut down⁩ ⁨⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Third party servers aren’t always enough. Microsoft managed to ruin 3rd party Minecraft servers.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨I've been wondering for some time⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  But isn’t that the whole point. The working class becomes the new rich class. That sounds like equal distribution of wealth.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Take that to the privacy of your own home.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  But why is it less weird to suck on rotten plant ovaries? That’s what alcohol is. Food is fucking weird.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Time to grow up.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  That’s an arbitrary line too though. Insects experience some form of emotion, but it appears not as complex as a mammal. If you’re going to define value of life by (estimated)complexity of experience, then we’re both agreed on a similar heirachy with humans at the top.

  My point is that there’s nuance. Everyone has their own opinion and none of us are right or wrong.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Time to grow up.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  You don’t axiomatically presuppose human supremacy? I don’t understand how that moral position works, and I want to hear more.

  In general, we empathize more with creatures that are more similar to ourselves, and creatures that are cute. Given that, human supremacy follows logically for me. Humans are top of the heirachy, followed by similar mammals, then birds, then fish, then insects. It’s sad that’s there’s a heirachy, but the alternative is considering the life of an insect equal in value to the life of a human. I think that’s a less moral position, but it would also drive you insane because we murder so many insects in our lives.

  I don’t believe it’s possible to have a consistent and non-hypocrytical ethical system, and if it was that wouldn’t be desirable. Every meat eater I’ve ever met agrees that agriculture kinda sucks, but they have other priorities.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Time to grow up.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  But you do exploit humans. The food you eat, the clothes you wear, actually pretty much everything you use was made with exploitation. The fact you can choose to go vegan and complain about it on the internet means you are incredibly privledged. As am I.

  You talk about rational discussion but all I’m seeing from you is the opposite, “all meat eaters are evil”.

  The world is complicated and there’s a lot of things wrong with it. You chose one problem to focus on, and that’s great. But just because other people have other things that they prioritize doesn’t mean they are bad people.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨They are watching⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  Are you interested in proving me wrong, or figuring out the right answer? If you actually read that article instead of just the title, you would have noticed at the end it says

  This leads us to say a few words about the widely held opinion that, because complex numbers are fundamental to quantum mechanics, it is desirable to “complexify” every bit of physics, including spacetime itself. It will be apparent that we disagree with this view, and hope earnestly that it is quite wrong, and that complex numbers (as mystical uninterpreted scalars) will prove to be unnecessary even in quantum mechanics

  They literally say that “complex numbers are fundamental to quantum mechanics”. In other fields of physics complex numbers are just a convenient tool, but in quantum mechanics they are(as far as we know) fundamental, even if the author hopes that to be proved wrong at some point.

  You seem like you know a bit about alternatives to complex numbers in other areas of physics, so it would be interesting to have a further conversation, as long as you stop being so defensive.

  Complex numbers seem to be used either as 2d vectors or as representation of waves/circles in exponentials, is there an alternative that combines both of those uses?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨They are watching⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  Nope, you’re just wrong. Quantum mechanics without complex numbers(real quantum theory) is less predictive than complex(regular) quantum theory. scientificamerican.com/…/quantum-physics-falls-ap…

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨They are watching⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  Quantum mechanics, as far as we know, requires imaginary numbers.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Thanks...⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  It gets better. Their Instagram is canadapetcareusa