- Posts
- 1
- Comments
- 322
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
- Posts
- 1
- Comments
- 322
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
I bet it was the jacket that sealed the deal
I just walk into the barber and tell them to bring glory to my house, easy!
In my head canon Riker is such a good guy for playing poker with his friends. He has zero chance of winning ever, but still plays for the fun of it.
We have a human with super cyber vision, this man can literally see through the cards. Now he might be staring at Trois tits most of the time (the TNG LaForge character was a bit of a creep), but still he can read all the cards. And it's actual canon he can't selectively filter, he gets it all at once.
Then we have a half human, half-Betazoid with psychic abilities. You ain't bluffing, you can't even hide your hand, she senses what you've got immediately. Sure she claims not to do that, but we've seen dozens of times she can't control that shit.
Next to her we have an actual fucking robot. Not just a machine with super human speed and strength, but also just about the smartest dude you've ever seen. Although his intelligence and knowledge is limited by a severe case of plotitus, you know he's counting the cards and stacking the deck. It's even canon he does that subconsciously, he's so used to cheating at cards, it's become second nature.
And then there's Worf, a proud warrior who doesn't really like to play games, but doesn't want to be left out. He absolutely sucks at playing cards, but they let him win anyways. I mean would you tell a Klingon warrior his pair of queens doesn't beat your flush? Hells no, he's likely to rip your head off by accident.
Riker has no shot at all, but he loves hanging out with the gang. So he'll happily lose all night, as long as his friends are there having a good time.
And by round 3 it's probably all gossip and booze (how does all that Andorian ale get onto starships anyway?), and Data playing all hands by himself because he's lost patience with the slow biologicals.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
While this is funny and all, this isn't really true for a couple of reasons:
- We know a hell of a lot about the oceans, we've studied them for hundreds years. There has been extensive mapping of the seafloor. All of the areas close to land have been thoroughly studied. And where we've spotted interesting stuff, we've investigated for sure.
- We haven't thoroughly explored the moon. Sure we've had nice pictures for a long time. But we've only recently seen the rear side of the moon, as we more or less always see the same side from Earth. Not till recent orbiters we've had a high resolution map of the moon, comparable to maps we have of the oceans.
- Only a dozen or so people have ever been to the moon and the amount of research they did was very low. They also haven't brought back many samples. And the amount we can do from orbit and with rovers is very limited. At this point I would say we know more about Mars than we do about the moon, depending on how to count. The moon isn't that interesting, so we haven't done much with it. It's made of the same stuff as the Earth and without an atmosphere and biosphere, it's kinda dull.
- This is basically impossible to measure. What is knowledge? How is it quantified? We could say it's relative. But since there isn't a way to know how much total knowledge there is available to learn, I'd say that's not possible. What does it mean to "explore"? Do people need to go there? Because a hell of a lot of people have been to the seafloor than to the moon. Hell going to the seafloor is a basic tourist activity these days. I've been to the Maldives and did some crazy dives looking at life on the bottom of the sea.
- People might argue the Moon is basically all the same, so once you've seen one spot you've seen them all. I'd argue that's not true, we've only recently learned the moon's poles are very interesting and we know very little about that. And I'd counter that argument with the fact the same goes for the deep oceans. A whole lot of it is just barren wasteland, an under water desert. We haven't explored because there is nothing to see. We select interesting locations and study them thoroughly, instead of studying a lot of it a little bit and wasting huge amounts of time.
- Another argument often repeated is new species are discovered every day in the ocean. Whilst this is true, we are also destroying a lot of species, so the total number might actually go down instead of up. And a lot of species are variants of already known species. Only expert biologists can differentiate between the species and know what to look for. And I'd argue they don't change the big picture or understanding at all. Still interesting, but not an indication there is so much more to find out there.
- But what about something huge living down there? Like a Kraken or dinosaurs? Well no, we don't have to have studied every square inch to know about big life. Big life is messy, requires a lot of resources and is part of a food chain. You don't need to see the dinosaur if you can see their giant mountain of crap amidst broken trees. There might be some kind of large squid or something down there, but they will probably be extremely similar to other large squid we already know about. So a new species, but not changing the overall picture. If there were any big monsters down there, we would know about them by now.
So this is one of those things that might feel true, but in reality it really isn't.
Wow is that THE Raymond Chen that answered? His blog is legendary: https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/
Yeah it's the difference between playing an old game today and remembering what it was like to play in the past. Not the same thing at all.
Plus a big part of old games these days is decompiling it, so you can recompile to run with higher framerates, higher resolution and without emulation. It's also possible to add nice QoL features and entire new game modes.
Just look at what Ship of Harkinian has done with OOT. It looks great, it feels like OOT still, but has the nice quick buttons. And if you want to experience the game like it's brand new, there is the randomizer. And similar projects exist for other old games.
And there's also people going through the code, figuring out glitches. And how certain mechanics worked, nobody understood very well back in the day. Discover Easter eggs that were never found.
That's game preseveration, not some AI fever dream if you squint a bit it kinda sorta looks like the old game.
A lot of the AI stuff I've seen from Microsoft also sucks hard and they know it. But they operate under the assumption these LLM systems will get better and better. Like this game thing they admit it sucks now, but imagine what it could be one day. However the reality seems to show more and more the point of rapidly diminishing returns has been reached. Throwing more data and processing at the thing isn't going to make it a lot better.
They are also so busy inventing new AI features nobody wants. Putting new flashy buttons everywhere and doing awful tech demos. They completely forgot to make actual useful features. For example a thing that happens a lot when working with less computer capable people, is people sending screenshots of Excel data. How awesome would it be if instead of helping write a new signature, the AI would go: "Wow what an asshole, sending a screenshot like that. Here is the original data so you can copy paste.". Or when trying to send an email without the attachment that really should have an attachment, it warns you. It already does this, but I think it just triggers on certain keywords like attach. This would be an excellent use case for an LLM, where it doesn't even matter much if it's wrong some of the time.
For me personally "AI" in the form of LLM can fuck all the way off. It certainly has it's uses, but this all in use it everywhere for everything has made me hate it. And the misleading marketing making people think it's basically AGI is wrong on so many levels.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
You know you are in for a good time when you get to the chapter called "Sexual connotations".
I'm not an expert on the field, so I've read the paper, but am not qualified to draw conclusions from it. But as I read it, the focus is more on the role of ritual and religion in the making of the iron. And the transfer of knowledge through this process and hypothesize the addition of the burning of bone is actually beneficial.
However they do not approach this from a material technology standpoint. So I would love for someone with knowledge on this point to chime in. It's very interesting if the people back in the day knew how to make low carbon iron and the little bit of carbon they did add came from the burning of the bones. But as I see it the burning of the bones is more a ritual kind of thing and getting all of the carbon out of the iron is the harder thing to do, not putting the carbon in.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
Is this actually true? Because all the YouTube videos I've seen of people trying to make iron in primitive ways have the issue of too much carbon in the iron. This causes the iron to be very brittle and hard to work. The trick about making good steel is to get just the right amount of carbon.
Well we knew the price didn't include the tarrifs when we saw Europe get absolutely crazy high prices. Higher than the US and a lot higher if we take into account the dollar tanking right now.
PSA: Chiropractors aren't doctors, they aren't better than any other "alternative" healer and at worse are conmen and can fuck you up permanently. Don't ever go to chiropractors.
Cool! Never know when you get to Portugal.
My car's brand got sold by VAG to PSA. VAG said this is the license for all the map shit, you can buy it if you want so you can service your customers. PSA said No thanks!
So now my car will never get another map update ever again, the latest data is from 2016 and as you can imagine doesn't really match reality in any way shape or form. The builtin GPS was bad anyways, so not a big loss. I'm an old person so I still drive pretty much everywhere without GPS. But it can come in handy at some times, but I've learnt the hard way not to trust anything that stupid thing says.
I've considered a phone mount so I can just use my phone for navigation, but never got around to it.
There was never any shortage of toilet paper. People just thought there was, leading to hoarding and fucking up the supply chain. This caused temporary shortages in stores, but there was never any shortage further up the chain.
Getting good data would be very hard, a dial indicator probably won't work very well with 0.2mm layer height and smaller. Maybe a laser would work better, but the amount of noise would be pretty high since 3D prints usually aren't as consistent to begin with.
A much better way this is done these days is an accelerometer on the print head. Then you can put the printer through a test program which wiggles the thing in different directions at different frequencies. The accelerometer can compare the expected result with the actual result and can pick out any weird oscillations or ringing of the machine. The data from this can then be applied when slicing, to compensate for the machine properties.
This is a pretty standard function on most high-end printers these days. And is even in reach for cheap machines, since you can buy USB accelerometers for this purpose. The downside of those is the USB cable skews the result a little bit, but if mounted permanently and the cable routing is done well it can work great.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
I CAN FIX HER!
Cool guys don't look at explosions
That's still a 4xx situation.
Doesn't matter, the client ignores the error anyways.
I hate that this is actually how the universe works, total BS.