jj4211
@jj4211@lemmy.world
- Comment on Home Depot 1 day ago:
What van are you thinking? Work vans do this all the time.
- Comment on Home Depot 1 day ago:
I think it was more how weird the downscale looked for that one, along with being posted next to AI generated ones.
- Comment on Home Depot 1 day ago:
Yeah, 3 out of 4 AI generated fodder and the 4th is using some weird downscale that manages to also give off AI vibes… I can understand the impression myself…
- Comment on Is your writing skibidi? 1 week ago:
Didn’t say that the concept of absurdist G-Mod stuff is new, it’s that the singular specific “skibidi toilet” thing is new.
- Comment on Is your writing skibidi? 1 week ago:
There’s some difference.
So you have the slang that’s akin to “Rad”. Words used with sincerity to communicate. “Rizz” and “Sus” fall into this category and seem pretty ‘mundane’, shortening Charisma and Suspicious.
Skibidi is a bit different. It’s more like that generations “Wazzzzzzzuuuuuuuup?” It’s something they themselves consider “just stupid to say”.
- Comment on Is your writing skibidi? 1 week ago:
Nah, it’s definitely a Gen-Alpha/Z meme. Millenials were more Badgers and Mushrooms sort of memes.
Yes, G-Mod is the medium for this, but this specific thing is new.
And Michael Bay I guess felt he must outshine the emoji movie…
- Comment on America's Smartest Man Finds Something Interesting 3 weeks ago:
I’d say it’s more people who are repeatedly told they are smart can be very stupid.
Many of then might even be “smart”, but the important part is having unwarranted confidence.
Complicating things is that society rewards confidence way more than it rewards competence. If I’m honest about a lack of competence in a certain area but someone else lies during the interview, good chance they are going to get the job over me.
The reality is that everyone can be very very stupid, and so long as each and every one of us is willing to accept and recognize our weakness we aren’t as likely to be assholes.
- Comment on Why I Haven't Seen Any Trump Supporters In Fediverse (Lemmy and Mastodon)? 3 weeks ago:
Our three weapons are…
- Comment on How do people in this day in age become nazis/neonazies sexist or even incels when there is so much knowledge against it? Do they get anything out of being that way? 4 weeks ago:
It’s not a matter of knowledge, it’s a matter of what they want.
One may desire to be advantaged/superior to some others, and particularly nice and easy if race or gender is a convenient shorthand for knowing who is ‘in’ and ‘out’, as long as you are in the ‘in’ group of course.
So life is just plain easier if women are just supposed to sit there and please them. If the ‘natural order’ justifies that convenience, then one may be attracted to that thought. To the extent fairness and equality makes their life harder, they are inclined to be upset at that obstackle. It’s convenient if the legal and labor world gives their race preferential treatment, and other groups are left desperate enough to do whatever they need done but don’t want to do, and scared enough of the government to not get “uppity”.
Sometimes overt evil, sometimes more subconscious manifesting as being very receptive to narratives that correlate with those feelings.
- Comment on The Sam Vimes boots theory of socioeconomic unfairness 5 weeks ago:
“Some stay dry and others feel the pain”
Hmm, still unclear…
- Comment on Donald Trump has fully embraced sharing AI generated images of Kamala Harris. 5 weeks ago:
Well, that’s the thing with the AI generated images. On top of looking generally ‘off’, they aren’t very good at making sense.
- Comment on Colorblindness check! 1 month ago:
Hmm, did it look different from original? Wonder if I messed up and uploaded the wrong thing…
I can’t see the left ones and the top right is a bit hard for me to see. The bottom right for me is more legible in my first picture.
- Comment on Colorblindness check! 1 month ago:
- Comment on Ah sweet! 1 month ago:
The time is coming for the most involved “go fuck yourself” ever.
- Comment on obesity 1 month ago:
We don’t have to abolish the word ‘Obese’ to avoid ‘hateful’. This started with someone being offended at the mere word ‘Obese’ and elevating it to a racial slur, then a comment saying a lot (likely the vast majority) of obese people can improve their situation.
We shouldn’t be mocking and laughing at someone because they are fat, or harping endlessly on it, but it’s sufficiently bad that when my doctor saw me being obese, he never directly said anything, just said things like “make sure to eat plenty of vegetables” and “being active really helps people be fit”. When Rebel Wilson decided to lose weight, people acted like she somehow betrayed obese people, that she abandoned her role as a model of body positivity.
The pendulum has swung too far to the point where people get too offended at the plain statement of being obese means health issues.
- Comment on obesity 1 month ago:
Not him, but I found my will to lose weight when a close family member was told their liver was failing and they had a few months to live, due to cirrhosis from their obesity. I knew I was on a similar trajectory and my bloodwork showed a hit to my liver function.
Good news is that my relative also found the will to get healthy and their liver improved more than the doctors thought could happen and so we both are doing much better. I’m even under 25 BMI now after losing 40 lbs. Also amazing to be able to move around like I used to as a teenager again.
- Comment on obesity 1 month ago:
I think there’s a danger in oversimplifying.
On the one end, some people do have a hard time or maybe even actually impossible time to fight their obesity.
On the other end, a lot of people are dismissive of trying to lose weight and hide behind “body positivity” and “obese people can’t help it” when they could really get a lot of results if they actually took it seriously. A relative of mine has been obese for decades, even as the diabetes came on the general take away they had was “apply medicine, keep living how I like”. Then when their liver started failing due to the fat and got the prognosis that they were probably going to die in a matter of months, they found the motivation to lose 40 pounds, in the goal of extending their life a little. Now they have what is, by all appearances, a healthy liver again. They also have much better mobility, reduced joint pain, blood sugar that doesn’t need medication anymore. Though they are still stuck with a lot of the damage already done, losing weight has been a great boon to their life, and something they always had dismissed as being something other people could do but they were just stuck that way.
- Comment on Why do we put up with this crap? 1 month ago:
Note they mentioned rail as the desired alternative, rather than cars.
- Comment on Olympic casual GigaChad 1 month ago:
Damn, standing exactly 10m away from someone and not moving is my power move.
- Comment on I too love watching CP 😍 1 month ago:
My company was developing a product they branded with a “CP” abbreviation. I told then to, you know, not do that, but our marketing said they already internally committed and I was making a deal over nothing.
Fortunately the product concept was also dumb and failed miserably before anyone in the industry could point it out.
I also am amazed that IBM branded a whole product line as “SurePOS”.
- Comment on The theory that we live in a simulation involves simulants running their own simulations; wouldn't that require impossibly more resources for the main sim? 2 months ago:
Such a purpose would inform the constraints. If we are just “the sims” on steroids, then all the deep physics are absolutely utterly faked and we are just “shown” convincing fakery. If it’s anthropological, then similar story that the physics are just skin deep. If it’s actually modeling some physics thing, then maybe we are “observing” real stuff.
But again, this is all just for fun. It’s not vaguely testable and thus not scientific despite the sciencey theme of it, just something to ponder.
- Comment on The theory that we live in a simulation involves simulants running their own simulations; wouldn't that require impossibly more resources for the main sim? 2 months ago:
First, this is not really science so much as it is science-themed philosophy or maybe “religion”. That being said, to make it work:
-
We don’t have anyway of knowing the true scale and “resolution” of a hypothetical higher order universe. We think the universe is big, we think the speed of light is supremely fast, and we think the subatomic particles we measure are impossibly fine grained. However if we had a hypothetical simulation that is self-aware but not aware of our universe, they might conclude some slower limitation in the physics engine is supremely fast, that triangles are the fundamental atoms of the universe, and pixels of textures represent their equivalent of subatomic particles. They might try to imagine making a simulation engine out of in-simulation assets and conclude it’s obviously impossible, without ever being able to even conceive of volumetric reality with atoms and subatomic particles and computation devices way beyond anything that could be constructed out of in-engine assets. Think about people who make ‘computers’ out of in-game mechanics and how absurdly ‘large’ and underpowered they are compared to what we would be used to. Our universe could be “minecraft” level as far as a hypothetical simulator is concerned, we have no possible frame of reference to gauge some absolute complexity of our perceived reality.
-
We don’t know how much we “think” is modeled is actually real. Imagine you are in the Half Life game as a miraculously self-aware NPC. You’d think about the terribly impossibly complex physics of the experiment gone wrong. Those of us outside of that know it’s just a superficial model consisting of props to serve the narrative, but every piece of gadget that the NPC would see “in-universe” is in service of saying “yes, this thing is a real deep phenomenon, not merely some superficial flashes”. For all you know, nothing is modeled behind you at anything but the most vague way, every microscope view just a texture, every piece of knowledge about the particle colliders is just “lore”. All those experiments showing impossibly complex phenomenon could just be props in service of a narrative, if the point of the simulation has nothing to do with “physics” but just needs some placeholder physics to be plausible. The simulation could be five seconds old with all your memories prior to that just baked “backstory”.
-
We have no way of perceiving “true” time, it may take a day of “outside” time to execute a second of our time. We don’t even have “true” time within our observable universe, thanks to relativity being all weird.
-
Speaking of weird, this theory has appeal because of all the “weird” stuff in physics. Relativitiy and quantum physics are so weird. When you get to subatomic resolution, things start kind of getting “glitchy”, we have this hard coded limit to relative velocity and time and length get messed up as you approach that limit. These sound like the sort of thing we’d end up if we tried simulating, so it is tempting to imagine a higher order universe with less “weirdness”.
-
- Comment on Thanks, Google 2 months ago:
Finally, my life-sized hotwheels car can have a suitable route.
- Comment on Thanks, Google 2 months ago:
I’m guessing they have a job like mine, where a driving trip is a relatively rare occurrence and micromanaging the travel isn’t worth it to mitigate the risk of paying out a little more.
- Comment on Automation 2 months ago:
Yeah, that’s a grandmother, so what?
- Comment on Automation 2 months ago:
Just have a bookshelf behind you during the interview, you’ll be golden.
Or maybe have the oval office as a backdrop, that might really make you qualified.
- Comment on A future sci-fi writers never could've imagined 3 months ago:
I presume the facial recognition would be trying to match against faces without the makeup.
If you always use the same makeup pattern, then I guess it can latch onto that like anything else, if trained to do so.
Also note that facial recognition tries to break down a face into discrete “pieces” so it can match a face in profile against the same face from the front. In your example the image is visually similar because they are both exactly the same angle, no ‘facial recognition’ involved. If it can’t figure out what a cheekbone is, what a nose is, generally what a ‘face’ is, then that would count as fouling the facial recognition because it would be unable to use a reference facial database.
- Comment on A future sci-fi writers never could've imagined 3 months ago:
What we didn’t know was that Zebras evolved to defeat AI comera recognition.
- Comment on A future sci-fi writers never could've imagined 3 months ago:
Well that’s why they set up a ministry to manage the silly walks, to make sure they complied with gait recognition before they were used.
- Comment on Additional citations 3 months ago:
I like this edit: en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chevrolet_Ci…