exasperation @ exasperation @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

300

Joined

10 mo. ago

Nothing quite prepared me for the first time I had a doctor who was younger than me.

Depends. Will I still have my glasses, now that I have time to read all the books in the library?

Dude don't you have a department of health and human services to run?

I’m just gonna eat this burrito though.

But pray tell doth the burrito qualify as a sandwich

But most people who are invested in small talk will be giving the signals they think the other person wants, making it less useful than not talking at all.

I don't think this is true. When I engage in small talk, I don't see it as me bending flexibly to the conversation partner's wants. I'm testing to see if there are common overlaps that we can talk about, and talking for the sake of being entertained. If the other person turns out not to be a good conversation partner for me in that moment, I don't think anything of just moving on. I'm not trying to please them, I'm trying to enjoy myself.

I can't imagine I'm in the minority here.

Are we all assuming everyone in this conversation is white? Because I know plenty of black and Asian friends who I don't recall having wrinkles. Most of them have pretty solid moisturizing/lotion/sunscreen routines, though, so it's hard to tell how much is cultural versus genetic.

If you have wrinkles at 40 you need to wear more sunscreen and drink more water.

But also even if you don't have wrinkles you should wear sunscreen and probably drink more water anyway.

So I had my dick out, which was the style at the time. "Dicks out for Harambe," you'd say. Now, where were we? Oh yeah, I had my dick out, which was the style at the time. They didn't have any zippers then, because of the tariffs. The only thing you could get were those shitty button fly pants.

Not all kids are "climb into an animal enclosure at the zoo" dumb. That's a special kind of dumb.

Have you ever had to care for 3-year-olds? I'd argue that probably more than 80% of 3 year olds are "climb into an animal enclosure at the zoo" dumb. And honestly, for the 20% you don't have to worry about, it's not intelligence that keeps them out, it's other personality traits or physical abilities.

The result is insane in my opinion, it means any sensible math system with basic arithmetic has a proposition that you cannot prove.

Stated more precisely, it has true propositions that you cannot prove to be true. Obviously it has false propositions that can't be proven, too, but that's not interesting.

with a rigorous, needlessly convoluted proof.

Again, Goedel's theorem was in direct response to Russell and Whitehead spending literally decades trying to axiomize mathematics. Russell's proof that 1+1=2 was 300 pages long. It was non-trivial to disprove the idea that with enough formality and rigor all of mathematics could be defined and proven. Instead of the back and forth that had already taken place (Russell proposes an axiomatic system, critics show an error or incompleteness in it, Russell comes back and adds some more painstaking formality, critics come back and do it again), Goedel came along and smashed the whole thing by definitively proving that there's nothing Russell can do to revive the major project he had been working on (which had previously hit a major setback when Russell himself proved Russell's paradox).

how about:
x = 2
2x = 3,000
omg! they’re inconsistent!

You didn't define x, the equals sign, the digit 2, 3, or 0, or the convention that a real constant in front of a variable implies multiplication, or define a number base we're working in. So that statement proves nothing in itself.

And no matter how many examples of incomplete or contradictory systems you come up with, you haven't proven that all systems are either incomplete or contradictory. No matter how many times you bring out a new white swan, you haven't actually proven that all swans are white.

And formal logic and set theory may have seemed like masturbatory discipline with limited practical use, but it also laid the foundation for Alan Turing and what would become computer science, which indisputably turned into useful academic disciplines that changed the world.

but I feel like people in union jobs making enough of a salary to buy a comfortable home is going to drive up wages for everyone

Even if that is an effect where increased unionized non-supervisor wages push up supervisor salaries, my point is that there are simply fewer middle managers to benefit from that effect.

Plus the second order effects of a hollowed out middle choking out the pipeline for promoting and training future business leaders, so that it's a small number of big corporate executives overseeing jobs they've never had instead of the older system of a lot more small and medium sized business leaders supervising jobs they used to personally work.

It was a response to philosophers who were trying to come up with a robust axiomatic system for explaining math. Russell and Whitehead's Principia Mathematica attempted to formalize everything in math, and Goedel proved it was impossible.

So yes, it's a bit of a circlejerk, but it was a necessary one to break up another circlejerk.

I don't think the McAllisters were in union jobs. I think they were pretty high up the tier of management.

People talk about union jobs going away, but don't forget, non-unionized middle management has totally been gutted by outside consultants over the same time period. So the changes in the workforce have hurt the earning power of both the line workers and the middle managers who used to make up the middle class.

Up in horsey heaven, here's the thing
You trade your legs for angels wings
And once we’ve all said good-bye
You take a running leap and you learn to fly

Sauropods had hollow bones and air sacs all throughout for lightweight structural support. You can't just compare sizes and assume similar density as elephants or other large mammals.

The "mental illness" and "plumber" categories can actually add up to be more than 100%.

If you take 100 joules of electrical or chemical energy, and then direct them to a heater in a house, it'll create about 100 joules of heat. That's 100% efficiency.

But if you use the 100 joules of energy to run a heat pump, it might bring in 300 joules of heat into the house. That's 300% efficiency, when measured locally at the place you actually care about (inside the house). Zoom out and laws of thermodynamics still make it impossible to create more energy than was put in, but if you look at just the part you care about, it's possible locally.

start supporting serious nuclear energy to drive down electric costs

Eh, I can see a resilience based argument for why we need nuclear, but building new nuclear is never going to be cheaper than solar or wind.

Why no, I am not a vampire

Oh and you probably don't want us driving wooden stakes through your heart either, huh?