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/)Q

Quibblekrust

@ Quibblekrust @thelemmy.club

Posts
2
Comments
297
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Proof that math is real

    Jump

  • I didn't say rectangles are squares, I said rectangles are square.

    Square can be an adjective. When you say a rectangle is square, you're saying all four corners are square. If you make a picture frame in the shape of a oblique parallelogram, it's not square. If you make it in the shape of a rectangle, it's square. If you make it in the shape of a square, it is both square and a square.

  • The math of infinite quarterly progress towards the nearest wall

    Jump

  • You knew what he meant. Don't be pedantic. Having "a back and forth conversation with an AI, where I also made manual edits at times, to iteratively produce on an image" is too verbose, and "collaborate" sums it up nicely.

    Especially since the conversation with the AI is literally in plain English. Do you talk to your power drill in English? Or table saw? Or toaster? No, but you do talk to an AI and have a conversation.

    Just because it's not "intelligent" or "self aware"—or other things you definitely don't want it to be anyways—doesn't mean you aren't having a conversation or collaborating. Those words apply just fine.

  • Proof that math is real

    Jump

  • Square means "90 degrees", so rectangles are square. They're just not "a" square.

  • I hope this clears things up

    Jump

  • I don't like the seam down the middle.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • reconned

    Do you mean retconned as in retroactive continuity? Or is Spinosaurus a serial victim of the same con?

  • omarchy is not a distro

    Jump

  • head bozo detects ever-so-subtle AGI whilst slop-fondling and easily "verifies" 30K LoC that was shat out.

    What don't you get? 😂

  • Heavy Community Backlash Blocks Fedora's AI Developer Desktop Initiative

    Jump

  • It doesn't matter that the title uses the name of the project accurately? Ok.

  • Heavy Community Backlash Blocks Fedora's AI Developer Desktop Initiative

    Jump

  • The project is literally called "Fedora Al Developer Desktop Initiative". It was blocked due to heavy community backlash. The title is not sensationalized. It's the exact article title from the webpage.

  • What UNIX Cost Us - Benno Rice (LCA 2020)

    Jump

  • Dear commenters, I have done very little research on this topic, and I am not a computer scientist. Just an average programmer who has written at most a few hundred lines of C. Feel free to (politely) tell me all the ways I am wrong.

    As long as you're turing complete

    I think you can stop there. Any computable function can be run on any Turing complete machine. You just need the right machine code. So you don't really need to add further qualifications.

    However, if you do... If you say C needs to be able to read input, write to files and devices, allocate and randomly access memory, or talk to an operating system in any way, then you've tied it to a particular (abstract) architecture. So, I'd say that's a pretty low level language on the abstraction spectrum. Most other languages are higher than it. If you were to rate programming languages from 0 to 10, C would be about a 3. Maybe even 2 for kernel code. Python would be like a 7, and SQL would be like an 8.

    Anyone saying a language is strictly either "high" or "low" is missing a lot of nuance, and C is definitely on the low end.

  • KDE gets over €1 million in funding from the Sovereign Tech Fund

    Jump

  • Plasma 6 just came out, and it contains a whole lot of new UI and features. It's much more than just security fixes.

  • Literally exactly how it works, too.

    Jump

  • Thanks for sharing your thoughts. No real arguments from me. It was a mistake on my part to equate what I had in my mind with the meme above. It is really is two different things.

    I just spontaneously remembered the FTL drive from the novel "Variable Star" by Spider Robinson and Robert Heinlein. The operator of the drive must hold multiple mutually contradictory thoughts in their mind at once, for hours at a time, in shifts with the other operators. Usually two at a time for redundancy. A failure to have at least one operator holding the required mental state would stall the drive and restarting it was very difficult.

    It was never really explained how it works, but it's taken totally seriously. It's not like flying in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" where you fall and forget to hit the ground. I thought it was a clever idea. To make consciousness an explicit part of FTL travel by basically holding your mind in a superposition of thought.

  • Kitten wreaks havoc at Fairbanks radio station, circa 1975

    Jump

  • Me, too. It pays homage to the source (maybe it meant "Radio Broadcast"?) while being a real name, and kind of a fun, old-timey one, too. Maybe he likes roast beef. Who am I kidding? Of course he does!

  • Kitten wreaks havoc at Fairbanks radio station, circa 1975

    Jump

  • It's RB, not Arby? Oops, I guess it is RB. I read the video description.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • What is that even supposed to mean? Did they make a typo?

  • Literally exactly how it works, too.

    Jump

  • Not exactly. At least I don't think. Einstein didn't believe in quantum mechanics at all, or that it was inherently random until measured. Bohr said it was, but I don't think he necessarily equated conscious observation with measurement. Einstein believed there must be hidden variables, but if there are, they're non-local.

  • Literally exactly how it works, too.

    Jump

  • it's a moot point because it's the sensor is the "observer", and it's not "being observed" that affects the outcome.

    Thing is, that's an assumption. You dont know that for sure. Just like you can't prove the speed of light isn't different in different directions. I'm not saying you shouldn't be free to believe that, but you must admit it's an assumption.

    I'm not a really mystical person, but I don't discount the possibility. That would be arrogant. Simply being conscious is rather bizarre. How does the universe even support that? What is it? Is there a consciousness field? Why does a blob of fat, protein, and sodium ions give rise to consciousness? Surely, life could have evolved and thrived without experiencing life. I can easily imagine mindless, robotic life just doing it's thing.

    Since no one can currently explain any of that, and no one can know for sure a wavefunction has collapsed until you've lookef at the results, I also don't discount that consciousness might play a role. I remain agnostic about it.

    imply that there's something special, different about consciousness.

    If you don't think there's something special and unusual about consciousness, I don't know what to say. 😄 I don't believe in a soul, but at least I admit that consciousness is special, and that the universe is weird because of that.

  • Literally exactly how it works, too.

    Jump

  • Well, if you look at the plate, then you've collapsed the wave function, and the data on the hard drive is then determine, and can't contradict the result on the plate.

  • Literally exactly how it works, too.

    Jump

  • Damn, that's quite the write-up! I actually haven't watched any of her videos in over a year, but I used to watch them a lot, so I figured I'd give her credit for part of my education. Her takes did seem a little odd at times, but it was refreshing to watch a science curmudgeon sometimes. I simply got sick of her schtick after a while, and did read a little controversy about her. I had no idea about the trans stuff.

  • Literally exactly how it works, too.

    Jump

  • The context of what each speaker is saying matters. Words don't have much meaning in isolation except for simple ones like "no". You could have a degree in the Philosophy of Science and still struggle to define "theory" accurately and succinctly.

    One speaker is using the word as a positive thing (accurately). After all, a theory is the best we can say about how the world works. The second speaker is using the word pejoratively. In that sense it actually doesn't mean the same thing, and any scientist would argue that the second person doesn't understand what they mean when scientists say "theory".

    Note: I said when scientists say theory. Words don't have inherent meaning, so the speaker matters. The speaker can only hope their audience takes their words the way they're intended. There's no guarantee that they will.

    The second speaker is trying to refute science by quoting scientists, yet using the word in a way that scientists don't. That's obviously dumb. But it is the way that most non-scientists use the word, so you could say the second speaker is just confused about what scientists have been saying when they use the word. The scientists' goal should be to correct the second speaker's understanding of what scientists mean when they use the word. The word itself is not actually important. You can get across the meaning without ever using the word itself.

    So who's right and who's wrong? Neither. It's a simple misunderstanding of how scientists uses the word when they speak. Unless, of course, the second speaker knows the scientific definition, and is pretending to not know in order to pander to an audience.