Lemvi @ Lemvi @lemmy.sdf.org

Posts

0

Comments

116

Joined

2 yr. ago

If this surprises you, you never had to worry about how you are going to pay next month's rent

OP is SCP-096

The title says "There's more people who wake up at the same second than people who fall asleep at the same second". One could (and most people seem to) interpret this as "the maximum amount of people waking up at any given second is higher than the maximum amount of people falling asleep at any given second", which is a statement I agree with. I interpreted it as "The amount of people waking up at any given time is higher than the amount of people falling asleep at the same time", which is of course false.

It seems we just weren't talking about the same thing. You were talking about the maximum values of both distributions, for which the statement is true, while I only considered the distributions' median and mean values, for which the statement isn't true.

I disagree that the post makes clear OP is referring to the max values, but I guess that's because english is not my first language, and my statistics background likely made me over analyze the statement.

Of course there are moments where more people awake at the same time than fall asleep at the same time. In the second 07:00:00 , yeah, more people awake than fall asleep. The same isn't true for 22:13:35. And if you look at all seconds of the day you will find that on average, each second the amount of people that fall asleep is roughly equal to the amount of people waking up.

What you are talking about is variance. There is a higher variance in the times of people falling asleep than there is in the times of people waking up. That does not mean that "more people wake up at the same time than fall asleep". There are times of the day when significantly more people wake up than fall asleep, but as a counterweight, on prettey much all other times, the amount of people falling asleep is slightly higher than the amount of people waking up.

So actually, it's the reverse. Given that most people wake up to alarm clocks, if you pick a random time of the day, it is likely that in that second more people fall asleep than wake up

I don't see why that would be true. People generally fall asleep about as often as they wake up, so the number of people who fall asleep at the same time and the number of people who wake up at the same time, averaged over all moments of a day, should be pretty much equal.

I am sorry about your experiences, and I agree that your condition puts you at a disadvantage.

But I disagree that neurotypical students have a privilege in this regard. What you are describing is an issue you will be facing everywhere, not just at university. Being able to socialize is a valuable skill in almost every setting, because humans are social animals, and many things in society revolve around personal relationships. Much of your later career will depend on who you know, and how much your (potential) bosses like you.

We should try to make things more accessible, but ultimately what puts you at a disadvantage isn't so much a rigged system, as your condition itself.

To draw a parallel: Blind people are at an extreme disadvantage, and we should try to make things as accessible to them as we can. But in the end humans are visual beings, many things in society will naturally revolve around sight. A society in which blind people are at no disadvantage whatsoever is just not feasable, because in the end they just have one ability less than everyone else.

Or another, more personal one: I suffer from migraines. Each month I spend 2-4 days in bed in pain and vomitting. It would be nice if that didn't put me at a disadvantage, but I don't see how that would work. I too believe that I "deserved a better experience", but the fault lies with my condition, not people not accomodating for it enough.

Your comment sure showed me! Right?...

Yeah, that's gonna show those nazis! Right?...

That's an advantage, not a privilege. Being good at something isn't the same as having special rights. For any given skill there will always be people who are good at it and others who aren't.

There are also fields where people with an ASD seem to have an advantage over neurotypicals. For example, the STEM major rate for young adults with an ASD is significantly higher than that of the general population, as this paper found: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10803-012-1700-z

I can't see the boat 😭. What part of the boat are the ladies shoes?

still don't get it, what are you supposed to see?

For me, other factors are much more important than the salary.

A tedious job with unpleasant colleagues would never make me happy, no matter how high the salary. On the other hand, if I had a job that was fun and had nice colleagues, I would be happy with a salary that only covered the essentials.

Also, I would rather have a salary that only covers the essentials for 30 hours a week than a salary twice as high for 60 hours a week. What good is money if I can never spend it?

There are more factors that are more important to me than the salary. How much physical labor is involved in the job? Do I have to work at night? Do I work shifts or do I have flexible working hours? Does the employer offer a pension plan? Are there any other benefits? Where would I have to work, close to friends and family or far away? ...

Yeah, there really isn't just one threshold value that would make me happy. More is better of course, but there are too many other factors.

Though it's probably worth mentioning that I don't have any children and don't plan on having any.

Of all the shit Ubisoft does, not selling on steam is the dealbreaker? Alright.

->go to sleep

->mobilization is announced

->wake up

->too late, go to prison

I really enjoyed Watch_Dogs, despite the shit it got at the time.

yes, its practically the same thing. Both contain surfactants, which is the stuff that allows you to rinse off oils and fats with water.

lemmy.sdf.org

The F-22 was designed for nothing else.

I could imagine a disease turn people delusional and aggressive. What's always seemed unrealistic to me was the premise of zombies being chill around each other and/or animals, but going bonkers when they see an uninfected person.

Also, these people would be done in by cold wheather, injuries, lack of food and water rather quickly, so they likely wouldn't pose the threat they do in movies.

Smell is a pretty complex thing.

For vision, we only have four different kinds of receptors, which can be stimulated by electromagnetic waves on a one-dimensional spectrum.

For smells, we have about 350 different kinds of receptors. Also, they can't easily be stimulated by electromagnetic waves, but only by molecules, which are much more difficult/costly to transport to their corresponding receptors.