Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)A
Posts
2
Comments
735
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • What blew my mind is this. What is the sum of the infinite series

    1, -1, 1, -1, ...

    One answer is to look at it like this:

    (1 - 1) + (1 - 1) + ... = 0

    Another answer is to look at it like this:

    1 + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) + ... = 1

    But then it gets weirder. What if you add two of the series together like so:

    1 + -1 + 1 + -1 + ...

    ____ 1 + -1 + 1 + ...

    (Please ignore the underscores. They're just there because otherwise Lemmy messes up the whitespace.)

    All the terms cancel out except that first 1 again. But this time it's the sum of two of these series, which means that the sum of one series is 0.5 and somehow not an integer.

    The correct answer is that you're not allowed to add up infinite series like this so that's why you get contradictory results if you try.

  • Being able to actually do anything you understand well enough, the way that magic works in many settings. A brilliant engineer can design an airplane, but he still needs lots of workers and machines and materials to actually build one. A wizard who knows how to cast "fly" can just go ahead and cast it and fly around. If he has the right books, he doesn't need other people for anything at all.

    The sort of mystery only possible in a story where the author himself doesn't have to know what the secret is. I love science but I was very disappointed when I was a kid and I realized that science meant that everything ultimately had a mundane explanation. A mysterious structure? Built by some Bronze Age dudes. Dinosaurs? Unusually large animals. Legendary heroes? Made-up stories. Even if elves or unicorns turned out to be real, they would have a mundane explanation too because the whole universe follows rules.

  • Men are only emotional about the important things.

  • I think this is just OpenAI marketing.

    "Insane thing: We are currently losing money on OpenAI Pro subscriptions!" he wrote in a post.

    The problem? Well according to @Sama, "people use it much more than we expected."

    Oh no, ChatGPT is too useful to customers! Altman isn't going to be telling any real problems that OpenAI has to the whole world over Twitter.

  • I was worried that this would be like those cookies pop-ups, but the functionality is still present here in the land of the free...

  • There are about 9,600,000 people in the US tech industry and this article never even mentions 9,599,998 of them. Even if Musk and Thiel support eugenics (and that's if) they're just talking about it as individuals, not as people who run tech companies associated with eugenics in any way. Musk is an immigrant and Thiel is gay, so you might as well say that eugenics is thriving in the immigrant community and the gay community.

  • “I can’t answer that,” Kennedy replied, pausing and then dramatically adding, “I can, but I won’t.”

    This is a weird thing to say, but my standards for what counts as "unbelievably irresponsible" are apparently a lot higher than some people's because this ain't it.

  • The title claims that eugenics is thriving in tech, but then the only examples it has of that are two individuals, Elon Musk and Peter Thiel. Even against just these two individuals, the accusations are vague and don't include anything these individuals actually did as opposed to just said (or rather what they are claimed to have said). Then for some reason an opposition to DEI is given as an example of support for eugenics. Most of the words in the article are spent talking about the eugenics movement of a hundred years ago rather than anything happening today.

    Musk and Thiel are very wealthy and influential, but they aren't "tech". This article is paranoia and click-bait.

  • I think it's a big deal for me because English isn't my native language. I have something to prove in a way that native speakers don't.

  • I do. I proofread everything to make sure that swipe typing got it right, and I judge people who get it wrong.

    It does bug me that the possessive form (fundamental to the language) rather than the informal contraction is the non-standard one, but I suppose it matches "his" and "hers".

  • I have no problem communicating with people through verbal means, but I don't get body language beyond the obvious (e.g. smiling). I mean, I get why people do it but I don't get how people do it. Generally this isn't a big deal but it does make dating really frustrating. I can communicate my own interest indirectly through verbal innuendo, but if the other person is doing anything non-verbal then I'll miss it.

  • They certainly tried.

  • Is that a panty shot?

  • Here are two that I thought were particularly striking visually.

    Brothers a Tale of Two Sons: The site of a battle between giants, where you had to navigate among bodies fifty feet tall.

    Alice Madness Returns: The ice level, where you could see sea monsters frozen in the ice. (Ignore the text; I couldn't find a better screenshot.)

  • How old would you say someone needs to be before being allowed to borrow money?

  • You were presumably willing to pay when you took on the debt, and nothing about the debt changed.

  • wage slave

    I think a lot of the people working that much make more money than they actually want to spend. The few that I know do. (They invest most of it.) They still want to have even more, but in the way that an athlete wants to set a new record.

  • I have been consistently surprised by how good each of the Toy Story films was. I can't think of a way to make 5 after the way 4 ended (unless it has new protagonists) but I expect the folks making the movie to surprise me again.

  • Trade (facilitated by money) doesn't require humans. It just requires multiple agents and positive-sum interactions. Imagine a company, run by an AI, which makes robots. It sells those robots to another company, also run by an AI, which mines metal (the robots do the mining). The robots are made from metal the first company buys from the second one. The first AI gets to make more robots than it otherwise would, the second AI gets to mine more metal than it otherwise would, and so both are better off.

    They don't care that they're stuck in a loop, the same way humans keep creating new humans to create new humans to create new humans and so forth.