Buddahriffic @ Buddahriffic @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

3,297

Joined

2 yr. ago

Moderating

---

A part that complicates it is nutrition. Nutrients are related to food cravings, but if you don't have access to food that has the nutrients your body is craving, you might eat other things in an attempt to satisfy that craving. But since they don't contain what your body needs, the craving doesn't go away, so the drive to eat more remains.

It's like the difference between being satisfied and full. For the first one, your body decides it doesn't need anything more and the desire to eat just isn't urgent (comfort/habit eating can still be a thing though). When you're full, it just means your stomach is full and you can't eat more without discomfort. But once there's room again, the hunger might return.

It was something I'd always notice with McDonald's. One big Mac never felt like it was enough. I'd eat the food and then be disappointed because it was all gone but I still wanted to eat.

But a good meal with a variety of ingredients can satisfy even if the volume of food isn't high. Like I've only tried fine dining once and went in to the 9 course meal expecting to need to stop for a burger or something afterwards because I knew the portions of each course would be tiny. I walked out of that restaurant with room in my belly but no desire to fill it with anything else.

It's also why pregnancy cravings are so strong. The body needs more nutrients when building another body, plus the timing of accessing those nutrients is more important.

It's a story that's been repeating for decades now. Company creates a new market with new useful tech, run by engineers passionate about the tech, experiences exceptional growth, becomes large corporation, much larger than any competition. Uses relative wealth to keep competition from catching up. Eventually saturates market to the point where market growth doesn't finance the growing R&D expenses (which were tuned assuming previous rate of growth would just continue). At some point, profit increases start coming from business/marketing side of things more than engineering side, resulting in MBAs and marketers getting more promotions and eventually control of the company. Then tech stagnates because they don't think investing in R&D is as worthwhile. Also aren't able to prioritize what R&D is still happening effectively because they don't really understand the tech as well as engineers. But they tread water and even increase profits because they dominate the market.

Until competition that is engineering focused (often also made up of former engineers from the dominant company) catches up or creates a new market that makes theirs start going obsolete. Suddenly trouble, then they either pivot to quietly supporting businesses that continue using their products, or gets in trouble with the law because of increasingly anticompetitive practices.

Xerox could have owned the PC market but thought they could continue being a household name sticking with copiers. IBM outsourced everything and people eventually realized they didn't need IBM. FoxconnFairchild had two groups of engineers leave and create Intel and AMD when they were dissatisfied with how management was running the company. And now Intel coasted while AMD floundered and was completely unprepared for TSMC and AMD to make large technical leaps and surpass them.

All they need to do is hold out and survive until China invades Taiwan and the chip foundry game will change overnight. I bet they'll even get free access to TSMC patents just to try to get the west back into the chip lead. They won't be allowed to fail at that point.

Though I don't see the consumer semiconductor industry thriving after that.

Yeah, it is kinda both in general. Though in this case, the math about this is well-defined: it's possible to increase a percentage either with addition or multiplication and both of those can make sense, just the words we would use to describe them are the same so it ends up ambiguous when you try going from math to English or vice versa.

But the fact that switching between communication language and a formal language/system like math isn't clear cut does throw a bit of a wrench in the "math doesn't lie". It's pretty well-established that statistics can be made to imply many different things, even contradictory things, depending on how they are measured and communicated.

This can apply to science more generally, too, because the scientific process depends on hypotheses expressed in communication language, experiments that rely on interpretation of the hypothesis, and conclusions that add another layer of interpretation on the whole thing. Science doesn't lie but humans can make mistakes when trying to do science. And it's also pretty well established that science media can often claim things that even the scientists it's trying to report on will disagree strongly with.

Though I will clarify that the "both" part is just on the translation. Formal systems like math are intended to be explicit about what they say. If you prove something in math, it's as true as anything else is in that system, assuming you didn't make a mistake in the proof.

Though even in a formal system, not everything that is true is provable, and it is still possible to express paradoxes (though I'd be surprised if it was possible to prove a paradox... And it would break the system if you could).

Yeah I was just curious because it's a difficult thing to wrap my mind around on the physics side of things. Like it is capable of generating energy and that energy could be used to spin the motor, but the two parts are opposites. It's like using the energy from a flywheel to spin that same flywheel.

You'd end up causing even more death than the Europeans because the viruses you carry are 500 years more advanced than the ones the Europeans brought, and evolved in a much more connected world.

Might be better to go back 10k years and leave stone tablets on either side of the ocean, informing anyone who sees it about the existence of the other world and how to navigate there so they can evolve their immune systems in parallel in a time when force projection capabilities likely won't mean an ocean-spanning Empire will arise.

Could have a system where a government site cryptographically signs a birth year plus random token provided by the site you want to use.

Step 1: access site
Step 2: site sends random token
Step 3: user's browser sends token plus user authentication information
Step 4: gov site replies with a string containing birth year, token, and signature
Step 5: send that string to the other site where it uses the government's public key to verify the signature, showing the birth year is attested by the government

No need to have any direct connection with the user's identity and the site or been the gov and site.

Would it be possible to put the energy generated back into the motor to make it easier to spin it faster? Maybe use some capacitors to have it switch between generator and motor mode on a repeating cycle?

Funny thing is this is a language issue, not a math issue.

Don't even need mods, just have a look at the options on the left side of the screen when you're selecting a song.

A moment? I had a few during my first playthrough. PD, RL, W, T, DL. And many moments of forgetting to keep an eye on that oxygen meter lol.

I think they are saying the odds are low that it will be just one nuke. More likely none, several, or a lot than just one.

Ah fuck, I just figured it out. We're in the bad place.

Canadian here who thinks the kid was in the right and would still have been it he had aimed for center of mass instead of the leg.

Do you think people should be safe to carry out home invasions without occupants of the home being able to defend themselves?

I wonder if their intent was to help people find a good VPN or to be the place people who want to find a VPN go and then give up looking for one.

Seems like the best way to get people to hate something isn't by going around telling people that they should hate it. It's by becoming a spokesman for that thing and telling people they should love it while making them hate you (and everything associated with you).

Each application has a full address space limited only by the number of address bits they use (which is way higher than the amount of physical RAM any machine uses, maybe even more than all RAM in existence for 64bit, since it can address space into the quintillions of bytes, or millions of terabytes).

It's only when they try to use a page of memory that the OS then reserves a physical page of memory that maps into your physical RAM. Allocating that space is a part of the page miss interrupt handler, which gets raised when a program in user space tries to access a memory address that isn't stored in the CPU's MMU.

When it gets that interrupt, the OS will check its own memory allocation table for that address (which stored in RAM and is larger than the CPU's hardware table) to see if it just needs to add the entry to the MMU, page it in from disk to a free page in RAM (possibly needing to page another page out to disk if there are no fee pages), or allocate a new entry to a free page (again maybe requiring a page out).

I believe Windows task manager (or Linux top) displays the total number of allocated pages * page size for how much memory a program is using. There might be a seperate column for how many pages are in physical RAM vs the page file.

Though there might be another path to get the OS to allocate pages before a page fault occurs, so it might not reflect the actual used memory. But allocating a new page on page miss isn't very expensive when there's free pages. Just a few table lookups and it goes back to the program. Paging out is more expensive, since each byte needs to be written to disk. Paging in is most expensive, since it usually involves a page out (because memory needs to fill up before a page out, so there's a good chance one needs to be freed) and then every byte of the desired page needs to be read from disk.

I prefer reusable glass containers, though they lose some space efficiency.

It may be helpful to read up on food-borne illnesses and their vectors. I say this because what I interpret from your comment is that rural areas are "dirty" and that right-leaning areas are somehow "dirtier" by virtue of being lax in food safety.

Yeah, I meant the association between right-leaning and "probably thinks safety regulations are a government overreach and waste of time that can be ignored if you can get away with it". And non-existent rights for immigrant workers, including unhygienic living conditions imposed on them.

And an assumption that choices between profit or safety will be more likely to err on the side of profit than safety if they believe they can get away with it, with the "fuck you, I got mine" mindset seeming to be stronger on the right.

Thanks for the comment and info though. My own comment wasn't really fair or useful.

Considering farms are pretty much exclusively in rural areas and how rural areas generally lean politically, it's a testament to the human immune system that food poisoning deaths aren't more widespread. Or maybe a testament to the usefulness of food production regulations. Guessing we'll find out which one by 2030, assuming it will be allowed to be reported on.

Or maybe new conspiracy theories will pop up over the next few years, oddly aligning with current health and safety science.

EVEN THOUGH VACCINES CAUSE AUTISM, TURNS OUT THEY'VE BEEN PREVENTING LIBERAL DISEASES THAT CAUSE BABIES TO COUGH THEMSELVES TO DEATH THIS WHOLE TIME!

NOT BRINGING MILK TO JUST UNDER A BOIL MIGHT MAKE IT SAFER TO CONSUME BUT IS HURTING THE OIL COMPANIES THAT GIVE US THE FREEDOM TO TRAVEL (WHEN YOU HAVE AN APPROVED REASON TO TRAVEL)!

SOLAR PANELS STEAL ENERGY FROM THE SUN, REDUCING ITS EXPECTED LIFETIME, BUT BRAND NEW TRUMP PANELS GENERATE FREE ELECTRICITY FROM THE VACUUM WHEN EXPOSED TO DIRECT LIGHT!

Does it also include those cutscenes where you have to press a button that pops up on the screen or you have to start the cutscene over again?

I hate those because:

1. Every console has a different layout for basically the same buttons.
2. I like cut scenes being little breaks where you just watch and soak it in. At least assuming the character doesn't make choices I hate or suddenly surrenders because a few enemies point weapons at them (after probably having fought more of those enemies actually using their weapons instead of just threatening it).
3. If I've seen a cutscene already, I'd rather skip it and get back to the good gameplay. Maybe the interaction was intended to reduce that "go away cutscene, you're boring, I want to get back to the fun stuff" but I don't find it accomplishes that at all.
4. It's not good gameplay. Even if I don't end up panicking and hitting a wrong button or missing it because I'm not ready to think about where the X button is on this particular controller, it's not rewarding at all to succeed, other than the "yay, I don't have to repeat this stupid shit anymore".
5. And I especially hate ones that prompt mashing buttons as fast as you can or rotating a stick as fast as you can (and this applies outside of cutscenes, too). I don't find anything interesting about testing the physical limits of my thumbs and wearing down the buttons or sticks involved faster in the process.