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/)SW
Posts
5
Comments
1,092
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • The first thing that comes to mind is that bacteria are prokaryotes, while plants are eukaryotes. They have internal membranes, called thylakoids, in which they do photosynthesis, but chloroplasts in plants are fully-developed organelles with their own DNA. If I recall correctly, the current thinking is that chloroplasts developed from endosymbiotic cyanobacteria.

  • Seriously. Saying "we're fucking morons" for being surprised by the 2001 attack on the World Trade Center might be hyperbole, except the same group tried the same thing in 1993! They were just bad at it. Instead of being a KIND OF A REALLY BIG HINT, that incident just kind of disappeared down the memory hole.

  • No, that's not it, we're measuring in incredulity units, which are syllables.

    "One hun-dred and se-ven?!" == 6 syllables

    "For-ty one?!" == 3 syllables

    Also, the first one has more vowel sounds to really draw out to indicate higher levels of I-can't-even. It sounds only golly-jeepers in Celsius, and much more I'm-so-done-with-this-shit in Fahrenheit.

  • Scenario: I want to call a friend in Bulgaria. It's 11:23AM GMT. What's he likely to be doing right now? With timezones, I can quickly calculate that it's 2:23PM local time, and intuitively know. Without, I'd have to look up a timetable of daily activities in Sofia.

    I guess if I called regularly, I could memorize the timetable, or maybe roughly calculate an offset in hours to add or subtract from GMT to intuitively relate his schedule to mine. For example, my dinner time is about 11PM GMT, so his dinner time is about 7AM GMT.

    But, I wonder, if I went there to visit, would it be easier to memorize the local timetable, or just do the math when I check the time?

  • Oh, hell, classes just resumed at the university here, so the new batch of freshmen is here, and some days I feel like it. But I don't count the Cold War as a war, just like the Holy Roman Empire wasn't holy, nor Roman, nor an empire.

  • Yes, that's what I see, that's clearly what he's doing. The difference is that in 2016, he was able to retain in long-term memory what didn't work, and had the mental flexibility to try out new bits to find things that did. Now, he keeps going back to the same dry well over and over again, in every speech, which is evidence that he's losing it. (As further evidence, I'd point out that this is consistent with the amount of time it took him to grasp that he wasn't running against Biden anymore.)

  • Case-sensitive is easier to implement; it's just a string of bytes. Case-insensitive requires a lot of code to get right, since it has to interpret symbols that make sense to humans. So, something over wondered about:

    That's not hard for ASCII, but what about Unicode? Is the precomposed ç treated the same lexically and by the API as Latin capital letter c + combining cedilla? Does the OS normalize all of one form to the other? Is ß the same as SS? What about alternate glyphs, like half width or full width forms? Is it i18n-sensitive, so that, say, E and É are treated the same in French localization? Are Katakana and Hiragana characters equivalent?

    I dunno, as a long-time Unix and Linux user, I haven't tried these things, but it seems odd to me to build a set of character equivalences into the filesystem code, unless you're going to do do all of them. (But then, they're idiosyncratic and may conflict between languages, like how ö is its letter in the Swedish alphabet.)

  • Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • That's true, but our theory of physics is far more complex than those simple patterns. It actually consists of many, many interrelated theories that mutually reinforce each other. And that so many of them describe phenomena described with c as a term strongly indicates the speed of causality of pretty fundamental.

    In any case, I'd be very interested to learn how it shakes out, but I probably won't be around in 300 years to do so!

  • Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • Ah, but "major technological breakthroughs" != "major technological breakthroughs concerning faster-than-light travel". Certainly, there will be more of the former in the next 300 years, but our understanding of physics precludes the latter.

    The quality of our understanding of physics is proved by the technological advances that we've already made with it. Yes, we're missing some major pieces, like how to unify general relativity and quantum mechanics (how to quantize gravity), but the problem that physicists face on this front is actually how stunningly well the Standard Model holds up, and has so far resisted attempts to break it. It's highly unlikely that we'll discover anything which completely upends the laws of physics as we know them.