justaderp @ justaderp @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

37

Joined

1 yr. ago

The pay is the satisfaction of a job well done. It's like a family. We work hard and we play hard. Make sure to read the company policy on appropriate flair. Don't miss the meeting to decide how to form the committee for defining the best means of communication between committees for accounting, finance, and those troublemakers from the moderation committee.

Remember conservation of momentum. The only way the machine can absorb part of the impulse is through friction, heat, and by redirecting the existing chamber pressure after the bullet has left the barrel.

Remember the human body. Magnitude matters much more than duration. Extending the time of impulse by implementing a slide lessens magnitude, the areas under the impulse curves roughly equivalent.

I'm going to apply the above to answer your questions to say it again :)

Does the slide absorb any significant amount of energy?

For a properly functioning, modern, and typically-designed pistol and a status quo definition of "significant", the answer is: No. That's not what it's designed to do. But, energy can be dissipated slightly if the pistol is compensated: a redirection of chamber pressure from near the end of the barrel, upwards, counter the torque component of the recoil impulse.

What's the math on this, say the dissipated energy in a semi auto VS revolver using the same round?

It's not quite a good question. The maximum force during the impulse is what a human cares about when analyzing a slide. That's what'll effect accuracy of the next round and how sore your hands will be in the morning.

If minimization of total impulse is what's being analyzed then one would want to compare rifles. Rifles have larger rounds, longer barrel length thus more time to use chamber pressure to mitigate recoil.

You've good questions for coming into the middle. Go to the beginning: rounds and various types of actions, rifleman 101. Come back to the hard science.

Above PugJesus talks about the energy of the round being very large. There's more to it.

The derringer design lacks any technology to absorb and extend the impulse of recoil, most importantly the slide found on any modern semi automatic.

Not only is there extreme recoil, there's also absolutely nothing to help the shooter deal with it.

There's been no rulings granting a transgender rights greater than another. It'd have been global news, the consequences of which would still be cascading through the judicial system.

So, when this transgender person was granted what may have been, after an arduous battle, equality in one situation, you disagreed.

What defines humans from other animals is complex communication and it's derivatives. I need not know the transgender person, be transgender myself, or even have a gay friend to feel basic human sympathy and empathy for them. That's the minimum human response: neutrality, equality. Anything less is animalistic hatred.

Edit: I've passed judgement on just this perspective you hold, not on you as a person. If I didn't believe you valuable I'd not have invested the time to explain why I expect more and believe you capable.

I'm not actually asking for good faith answers to these questions. Asking seems the best way to illustrate the concept.

Does the programmer fully control the extents of human meaning as the computation progresses, or is the value in leveraging ignorance of what the software will choose?

Shall we replace our judges with an AI?

Does the software understand the human meaning in what it does?

The problem with the majority of the AI projects I've seen (in rejecting many offers) is that the stakeholders believe they've significantly more influence over the human meaning of the results than exists in the quality and nature of the data they've access to. A scope of data limits a resultant scope of information, which limits a scope of meaning. Stakeholders want to break the rules with "AI voodoo". Then, someone comes along and sells the suckers their snake oil.

I do not think that life will change for the better without an assault on the Establishment, which goes on exploiting the wretched of the earth. This belief lies at the heart of the concept of revolutionary suicide. Thus it is better to oppose the forces that would drive me to self-murder than to endure them. Although I risk the likelihood of death, there is at least the possibility, if not the probability, of changing intolerable conditions. This possibility is important, because much in human existence is based upon hope without any real understanding of the odds. Indeed, we are all ill in the same way, mortally ill. But before we die, how shall we live? I say with hope and dignity; and if premature death is the result, that death has a meaning reactionary suicide can never have. It is the price of self-respect.

Revolutionary suicide does not mean that I and my comrades have a death wish; it means just the opposite. We have such a strong desire to live with hope and human dignity that existence without them is impossible. When reactionary forces crush us, we must move against these forces, even at the risk of death. We will have to be driven out with a stick.

We're living in a late stage capitalistic hellhole and you're advocating faith in the free market.

What. The. Fuck.

There's a big difference between "I wouldn't choose that," and "They should be prevented by force from choosing that."

What you're looking for is a hate group. You can advocate not just judicial rulings limiting the freedom of minority groups, but for disposing of the minorities once and for all. If that's too extreme then you'll just need to tolerate them. Be better than those that didn't tolerate your hatred.

Monopolies don't care about the user experience, only profit. The AI doesnt understand the former, only the latter. The continued degredation of the user experience is a likely indicator of an increase in revenue as function of successful application of AI.

You said it, I asked you to think about it, and you've said it again. I'll certainly respect your decision. Thank you for reconsidering.

If a potential candidate doesn't understand why there's a strong vetting process then then don't understand the changing paradigm of human communication. Teaching that is an unacceptable liability. The OpSec is on point. Great work. And, thank you for everything, including tolerance of those that don't yet understand why.

What I have to say isn't positive. And, it's likely not constructive as I believe I'd be preaching to the choir.

The important thing to say is that I'm beginning to understand why others likely believe you'd make a trusted and capable moderator.

I don't like Biden, Democrats, or Republicans, because they've consistently represented their corporate constituency.

I personally

Political representation isn't a popularity contest.

That said, he's been an effective, progressive president.

Yes, when compared to diarrhea he's a God.

Get out of the echo chamber and begin thinking for yourself. Others will gladly help once you find humility.

I feel like the only "real" relationship I have is with my wife. Friends I think are close distance themselves if I begin a conversation with something personal and nuanced enough to be meaningful and engaging.

We both felt like this for quite awhile. And, we soon reasoned that we were about the perfect people in the perfect situation to answer: Where does a collectivist sense community still exist? The answer appears incredibly simple: Forty to sixty minutes from the closest Walmart.

In twenty five years you'll be thanking her because you know what the fuck the news just said. But, today, I can only imagine the torture.