Tudsamfa @ Tudsamfa @lemmy.world

Gamer™

---

Read more

Posts

7

Comments

229

Joined

1 yr. ago

If you want to open a padlock and don't have the key, you can almost certainly break it open with 2 big wrenches.

I only had 1 opportunity to try that yet, when removing a 20 year old lock some stupid kid left on my stuff and then forgot where I put the key, but man did it feel empowering.

You can practice this trick at any romantic bridge. Do you really think whoever etched their initials on the lock is still together and would notice? Please

I know that, what made you think I forgot?

It's just not fun to me, yet online people describe Mario 3 as "the best 2d Mario" and "one I could always come back to". This has nothing to do with the NES' limitations, it's a difference in taste.

My first Mario Game was Super Mario World, as such I don't understand why Mario 1 and 3 are so beloved. Groundbreaking they might be, fun they are not.

Any time I got the Mario All Stars Cartridge out and said to myself "I am completing Mario 3 today", after a while my mind went "or I could actually enjoy a round of Mario World" and did that instead.

I never said that. What I meant is that a behaviour, which benefits a species as a whole but reduces one individual's fitness, is not evolutionary competitive. It's evolutionary game theory, like the prisoners dilemma from normal game theory.

And to determine if some behaviour is such a dilemma, you have to consider costs and benefits of it, which is not at all clear in natural situations. That's why I said it needs to be studied.

But I must concede, I sort of assumed what exactly you called an evolutionary advantage. Common homosexuality in penguins or not discriminating against homosexual individuals in penguins have very different analysis here.

I'd be cautious with saying evolutionary advantage here.

I don't believe the "Gay Uncle hypothesis" any more than the somewhat debunked "Grandmother Hypothesis", which aimed to explain menopause with biological altruism. Just because we could think of a way in that it might be advantageous for a species doesn't mean it's advantageous for an individuals fitness.

Of course, it can be still an advantage, but we'd only know with more free, uncensored research.

Yes.

We humans are very well adapted to tell humans apart, penguins are very well adapted to tell penguins apart. They have gender specific mating calls for example.

Contrary to popular belief, Emperor Penguins do not mate for life. They are serially monogamous, only having 1 mate per year, but between years fidelity is at around 15%.

I think this means that they only choose last years partner 15% of the time. Still higher than random chance, but in no way dependant on their partner.

Was looking up something else on Wikipedia and stumbled onto this fact. I know this is not exactly related to the point you wanted to make, but I might as well share it.

From the penguin documentaries I watched as a kid, I feel like the "leaving eggs behind" might involve relentless bullying.

I think I used to eat mud when I was bored.

Actually, it was the train that has come the long way.

It might look like you're moving when you focus completely on the train, but you are in fact standing still while train spotting.

I think that is thinking a bit too narrow. A lot of the stuff we use today might just be our bronze to our successors iron - you can build an unstable society on either. And what we do use up today could still work if used more efficiently - we might not have enough rare metals to give everyone a smartphone in the post-post-apocalypse, but I could see us still launching satellites if only big governments had computers - because they did.

You are correct, but that doesn't mean I can't speculate about it.

The ability to do photosynthesis is widely distributed throughout the bacterial domain in six different phyla, with no apparent pattern of evolution., according to this random paper I found on the internet (I'm not a biologist either).

What I can glance is that photosynthesis has (probably) evolved independently 6 time in Bacteria and 3 times in Eukaryotes.

Plants evolved to photosynthesise after photosynthesising bacteria already existed for billions of years.

(But then we have to also acknowledge that multicellular life evolved like 25 times in Eukaryotes, and the Eukaryote - aka Mitochondria-"Powerhouse of the cell"-haver- is the real big step as it only happened once to our knowledge).

We have had Millions of years of (presumably) intelligent Dinosaurs on this planet, but only 200.000 years of mankind were enough to create Civilization IV, the best Strategy game and peak of life as we know it.

So clearly, Civilization™ is what sets us apart.

Jokes aside, the thing evolution on earth spend the most time on is getting from single celled life-forms to multicellular life (~2 billion years). If what earth life found difficult is difficult for all, multicellular collaboration is way harder than photosynthesis, which evolved roughly half a billion years after life formed.

A filter for sure, but not a great one. Call me optimistic, but I don't think that will set us back more than 10.000 years. If humanity can survive, society will re-emerge, and we are back here 2-3000 years into the future.

Is +5°C Earth a good place to be? No. Will the majority of humans die? Absolutely. Will the descendants get to try this society thing again? I believe so.

On a cosmic scale 10.000 years is just a setback, and cannot be considered a great filter.

No, there's barely any physical evidence that anyone a few hundred years ago existed.

But if writing is enough, there are some. Tacitus basically said: "Nero blamed the Christians, followers of that Guy called Jesus who Pilatus executed a few decades ago."

Wikipedia at least says both his Baptism and crucifixion are not disputed by historians.

The news say Eastern Ukraine, though take that with a grain of salt as I haven't been there personally.

Even his good opinions need to overhype AI...

Anyway, we all saw that Tom Scott video, we know it's a bad idea.

I never bought any Apple product and thought they were overhyped, so it might be easy enough for me to say, but no, I personally wouldn't have been Ok with it.

I can see more people begrudgingly using it if Apple did it though.

Our Minister of transportation has been a disaster for our most climate minded government yet.

He continuously refuses to present any plans on how to reduce emissions in his sector. His emission reduction targets for the past few years were missed, but instead our climate bill was changed so it doesn't have immediate consequences as long as other sectors meet their targets. Investments in communal and private rail were cut by 20 million €, while 150 Million were given to Volocopter, a start up for personal-use passenger drones. "State-owned" rail did see minor increases in investments, but most of that money is locked for now until the government and "Die Bahn" company agree on financing it.

The only good new thing in transportation right now is the 49€ a month ticket for all public transport in Germany, and even that fails to make commuters switch to public transport as public transport remains unreliable and inconvenient outside of cities.

Sorry NorthWestWind, I can't give credit.

Come back when you're a little ...mmmmmhhhhh richer!