Buddahriffic @ Buddahriffic @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

3,297

Joined

2 yr. ago

Moderating

---

Though even in that case, I'd consider water consumed to be covered under "food".

The only exceptions I can think of are from gaining mass from things other than what you eat. Like tar buildup from smoking, snorting or injecting various substances, boffing something (I think that's what it's called... Up the butt instead of out the butt), things sticking to your skin, absorbing through the skin, or bugs/aliens laying eggs inside you. Maybe getting possessed by a ghost, if ghosts have mass. But I don't think all of those combined would even come close to a single meal, other than extreme cases.

I was curious and looked into how much mass the average adult loses through breathing, and apparently it's at least about 69g (at rest, if you are metabolizing fat).

Ah I see what you mean, my mind interpreted what you were implying in a completely different direction from what you intended.

Which makes me realize I had missed on a big part of home automation by not realizing you don't need to have direct communication with the appliances for an automated home.

I need to look in to smart water flow meters and maybe I'll be able to implement one thing that's been kinda a pain here: needing to manually check the water softener level to tell if I should cycle it before running the dishwasher or washing machine. I also need to move things to get into the utility closet, so it's a pain. Instead I could measure the flow to know how much is left and reset it when the softener draws more power for its regen cycle. And then have something check it and send an alert any time either of those water using appliances draw more power than idle if soft water available is less than a threshold.

Also, for your problem, I'm assuming now that the intention is to turn up the ceiling fan if the stove is at a higher level? Or something to do with circulating air based on that? If so, what about using temperature sensors and the difference between them? I think that would end up being more efficient and effective than just going by the stove setting, since you don't need high fan as the stove warms up and might still want the fan going after it shuts down.

Or if you want to know for some other reason (pellet use tracking?), you could combine temperate differential with current fan settings and calculate a rough estimate of how much thermal energy it's putting out.

This is different from the old man angry at change meme. The change isn't the problem; personally I like change and seeing evolutionary and revolutionary improvements.

The problem is that so many of these changes are for the benefit of the corporations involved in the product at the expense of anyone who ends up using it or is near enough to be affected collaterally.

The idea of a smart TV is nice. Except they put the underpowered hardware in it that struggles to display a menu. Maybe because of all the data it is gathering and sending home or the time it spends making sure the latest ads are downloaded.

Smart appliances are also a nice idea. Except most just want to connect to some proprietary web service so they can middle man every interaction to sell your data or a subscription.

A smart car also sounds cool. Except they are also designed to just make more money either via more expensive repairs, possibly even forced to go through a manufacturer approved mechanic because they use security features to protect them from competition, or by the usual selling your data and ads. Oh and also they can save money by sticking a bunch of controls into the software and not needing to make physical buttons. Also they save even more by also using underpowered hardware and probably not even bothering with UX design. Maybe even deliberately because bad experiences can be upsellers. Oh they also want to sell subscriptions to whatever they can, including to things that don't even benefit from going through their services.

It's all just rent seeking.

Wait, doesn't a pellet stove produce heat by burning pellets? I'd figure the electricity use would be similar to a gas furnace, where it's just running sensors and cycling it on or off.

Don't you have to buy pellets and maybe even load them into the stove, depending on what kind of delivery system/hopper your stove uses?

My favorite so far has been Enshrouded. Voxel world that doesn't look like it's made of cubes, plus souls like combat (though not nearly the same difficulty).

WoW probably holds the most cases of this for me.

World PvP was one front. Early on, just winning fights felt good. Then, as I got better, it felt more normal when it was an advantageous matchup for me. But the peak for me was during TBC, I was leveling my rogue and a hunter jumped me as I was mining. This was pretty much a worse case scenario, especially because the hunter was lvl 70 (max at the time) and I was still something like lvl 65. But even at the same level, a) a hunter is a natural counter for a rogue, and b) I was mining so I didn't even get the stealth advantage.

So there was a lot of dopamine when I ended up getting to finish mining that node and the hunter had to walk back to his corpse after I beat him anyways.

Also a lot of dopamine from finally beating raid bosses that my guild had been stuck on for a long time. Vael in BWL was the peak for that one IIRC.

Kinda misses the point because they have their own money to pay for whatever treatments they want, even if their company regularly denies them to clients. Buying insurance is gambling against the house, just health insurance has that extra bit where the insurance companies somehow have a say in what treatments they'll cover.

That's why the rich don't gaf about ruining public services. They can still just hire someone to do it for them and if the government isn't providing the service for everyone else, they'll also need to hire someone to do those things, meaning some capitalist can set up a business to profit from the need the government no longer meets.

Move the battlefield to one where the outcome doesn't affect you and you'll never really lose.

Plus, while you're winning, it being a normal thing will mean you'll get plenty of blackmail material on those who it does affect but who also prefer the connections that staying on your side gives. And you can prosecute your opponents that openly defy the ban.

Though I'd say this one takes it to a whole new level because of a few extra factors:

1. Pre-orders were priced for exclusivity. Iirc, Tesla was having a lot of production/inventory issues when the pre-orders were collected. I'm not sure how much the deposits were, but they'd have added some sunk cost to the situation, making it harder to walk away when it might have been clear that they would be a shitshow. No one has a deposit on anyone's used cyber truck to add incentive to pay the rest.
2. Elon's reputation hadn't sunk so low when pre-orders were made. Iirc, it was after the whole submarine/pedophile thing, but it seems that many didn't see the writing on the wall from that event.
3. They turned out to be pretty bad. Other Teslas have and had issues but the cyber truck has had some particularly embarrassing ones for a truck. Like not handling rain or sand well.
4. It looks so unique that it doesn't really fly under the radar. The two other very hated vehicles I can think of off-hand, the PT Cruiser and the Aztec, were ugly but still looked similar enough to other vehicles that many people didn't know what they were or that they were so unpopular. People could buy one before they realized, and it was easier to not care what others thought. The cyber truck looks like a 90s video game truck in a time when memes reach many more people, to the point where openly laughing at cyber trucks you see in RL might be a meme.
5. Cars and trucks are expensive in general, but this one is on another level. While I might be behind on inflation, the price is comparable to a mid/low-end Porsche (~80k for a boxter, ~120k for a 911 is my benchmark, though it's old but it's also CAD, so maybe it works today for USD). A) why would someone want that more than a Porsche? B) most people can't afford a Porsche.

Not to mention the people Elon is pandering to these days either have trouble affording his vehicles without a dealer trying to convince a bank to take the loan, or can easily afford it but have money in part because they don't spend it on stupid shit like a cyber truck.

All of that on top of the usual depreciation.

Yeah, when it's just a case of 3 people who all want to fuck both of the others, it's kinda hard to go wrong.

Though it also works best if at least 2 of the participants are active lovers. Two starfishes would be more like the one person takes turns fucking the others. Three starfishes would probably just end up being a threesome agreed upon that never ends up happening.

At least one person needs to be bold enough to make a move.

Whatever it is, I don't believe paradoxes are possible (other than language ones that basically just confuse any attempts to resolve a statement or set of statements to true or false without breaking any physical laws or causality).

That said, I don't think an unstable time loop would necessarily be impossible. Eg, you go back in time and kill your grandfather before your father is conceived, which results in you never existing in the timeline, which then means no one is there to go back in time and kill your grandfather, which means the loop disappears and the timeline snaps back to the version where you do go back, and it continually alternates from there.

Not sure if any future outside of the unstable loop would exist, I think that would depend on if there's a higher dimension of time that these loops could play out over.

Or, if everything experiences the same present at the same time, it's also possible that after the first loop, it wouldn't go back to resolve the whole "killer pops out of literally nowhere" because it was in the past and no time traveler is bringing the timeline back to there, so it's all in the past. Though I think in that case, you wouldn't disappear after killing your grandfather. You'd just be an enigma that would require going outside of time to understand the origin of.

Tbh though I'm 99% sure time travel just isn't possible (paradoxes or not), just a fun thing to think about. And no, I don't consider quantum effects being symmetrical in time to be time travel, they are just cases where you can reverse cause and effect and still have a valid cause and effect sequence.

Funny thing is, they'd be right but not realize that Trump is a part of it rather than the solution to it.

Not sure where anything in that link contradicts what I said. A character used in a logo is one of those cases where a character is used as a trademark, but it only applies to that logo. Having a trademark of a Mario logo wouldn't mean that Mario couldn't show up in works that aren't by Nintendo, it's purely the copyright that prevents that.

The part where it gets complicated is more about, for example, a video of Mario playing Palworld and saying "This is-a better than-a pokemon!" was used to try to imply Nintendo themselves recommended Palworld over Pokemon, since Mario is a trademark of Nintendo and strongly associated with them.

Trademarks are about marketing and the origin and/or endorsement of something. Copyrights are about the presentation and creative use of the copyrighted works.

That said, if trademarks are used in the creative work, it seems as though they would need to be removed for someone else to sell that work. So if steamboat Willie has the Disney logo as a part of its opening credits and someone else tries to show it without removing that logo, Disney world likely have a trademark infringement case. But they wouldn't have a case simply because Mickey mouse could be considered they spokesman and is a character in it.

For the Nintendo ones, once super Mario Bros' copyright lapses, "Super Mario" might need to be removed from the title for others to sell it to avoid infringing on Nintendo's trademark. But the characters of Mario, Luigi, Mushroom Man, King Koopa, and the Princess would be fair game, either in the game's original format or derivative works.

Yeah I liked the idea of Uber at first because taxis have been shitty for a long time and Uber was shaking up that industry.

But then I learned that Uber wasn't making money and immediately realized that they were just looking better than taxis for as long as they needed to to drive them out of business so they can be even worse, while providing even less than taxis companies do. At least taxi companies have a relationship with their drivers while Uber was just a platform for connecting anonymous riders with almost as anonymous drivers and handling the financial aspect of it (so that they control it all as middlemen with control of the wallet).

So now I just use taxi services when I need a ride (while cursing the state of mass transit in North America and GM plus corrupt politicians for their role in making this like this).

Similar story with hotels/airbnb, though they've made it even worse because they are affecting the housing market itself rather than just the luxury service of staying somewhere while away from home.

A trademark is just a symbol used to show something was made by a certain entity. They aren't about the things themselves.

Eg the Nintendo logo is a trademark but the characters like Mario, Link, and Sonic aren't.

Though it can get a bit fuzzy when characters are used as trademarks, Nintendo couldn't just say "Mario is our spokesman" to gain indefinite protection on him. But, even if Mario wasn't covered by copyright, someone else couldn't use him to act as if Nintendo endorsed their product.

Or even from the same post. I'd frequently see replies that were so obviously out of context and would usually find the source when just doing a text search on part of that comment. Some bots were sophisticated enough to adjust the wording a bit (those might have been using earlier LLMs that weren't very successful at conversations but could handle a bit of editing).

Sometime in the last couple of years iirc, though I'm having trouble finding it, what with all of the articles about "it might look like this is happening but Facebook insists it's not".

If she had been male, it would have been about ass kissing rather than dick sucking.

This isn't a "haha women can only success if they use their bodies" so much as a "haha she miscalculated that using her body would give her a close position to Trump but he moved on pretty quickly and prefers Elon's money".

Personally, I like the first one and wouldn't use an option to automatically give those permissions to all apps.

Being a power user doesn't make anyone immune from malware, it just needs to pass some sniff tests. It was by luck that that backdoor in the Linux kernel was found and it's naive to believe every single malware app is going to be obvious with unrealistic promises and/or bad grammar and spelling. Permissions requests are a clue that an app is doing something it shouldn't be. And Facebook is considered trusted by many despite an insider even confirming the "talk about something near your phone and fb will advertise it to you" being real.

When you download an app, unless you either wrote it yourself (including all libraries) or have checked the source for open source apps (again including libraries), you can only guess at what it is really doing. And just because an app does what it claims to do doesn't mean it isn't doing anything else, so the "well, it does work" test isn't a great security test.

For the app developers being able to block side loading, it says it uses meta data to enforce that. Couldn't modders just modify that meta data so that it doesn't realize X' app is actually a modified X app? It would need to do something more complex than a checksum or hash to detect it's the same app.

I mean, I love "fuck Google" bandwagons, but either I'm missing something or this one doesn't seem like that big of a deal.

The saw movies are basically gore/torture (both physical and psychological) porn.