Hieroglyph
notabot @ notabot @lemm.ee Posts 2Comments 654Joined 2 yr. ago
notabot @ notabot @lemm.ee
Posts
2
Comments
654
Joined
2 yr. ago
I didn't know Satan had a daughter!
That is some top tier trolling, well done!
122L
I don't always agree with what you post, but you're spot on here.
That's the thing, you wouldn't have the power to do any of that before you were booted out. CEOs do have a lot of power over the board, and the board has power over the company. The net result is that if the CEO pushes too fast or too radically they get removed before any change occurs. As the poster above said, in situations like this the CEO is paid to be the fall guy; the people who wield the actual power are the board members and the large shareholders. The CEO deserves a chunk of the blame for being the face of the organisation and legitimizing it, but killing one, or even a few, off wont significantly change the direction these companies are headed in.
Possibly, but if you read about the rest of his life it seems like he just really enjoyed adventure, and, in common with many others, saw war as a thrilling, life-or-death, adventure.
Thank you for the time and energy you've put into making this instance what it is, I hope you can rest, recharge and start enjoying it with the rest of us.
That reminds my of the quote by "Mad" Jack Churchill on the end of the Second World War: “If it wasn’t for those damn Yanks, we could have kept the war going another 10 years!”
He was apparently a good leader, being promoted to Colonel, and clearly enjoyed his war. He's credited with the only confirmed kill with a long bow in the war, wore and used a Claybeg style sword and, on more than one occasion lead the charge in to battle whilst playing his bagpipes and hurling grenades.
In short, he well and truly earned his moniker.
Word for word what I was about to post.
Sit by the bedside of a loved one as they die in agony that can only be even partially controlled by keeping them comatose. You'll likely soon come to the conclusion that we shouldn't be trying to just live 'as long as we can', but as long as we can well.
There often comes a time when the rest of a person's life will consist only of barely managed pain, suffering, indignity and imminent death. It should be up to the person living that to decide if it is worth it, and and up to the medical profession to deliver a peaceful end if that is what they want.
There are plenty of issues that need to be worked through before it is possible, particularly around coercion, deliberate or accidental, and how it is delivered, but they must be worked through if we are to consider ourselves humane. When an animal we care about is suffering, with no hope of relief, we can make the choice to end their lives to alleviate the suffering, we should be able to do the same for ourselves.
It's uncanny isn't it, he's such a copycat that he even copied the original shooter's face!
The 'killer' died in prison, therefore and new incident must be a copycat by someone who happens to look a lot like him. That's a brand new case. /s
I suspect that, for exactly that reason, they'll just lock him up and try to forget about him.
Goats are actually malevolent vegetables.
Clearly what you need to do to avoid the recoil is mount the guns on a solid metal hoop like structure around your chest, and have a matching set in the back to balance the forces. One pull of the trigger and you ruin everybody's day.
As I said, it's an interesting question! I think I've found a paper describing something like the scenario you mentioned (Dhar, A. (1993). Nonuniqueness in the solutions of Newton’s equation of motion. American Journal of Physics, 61(1), 58–61. doi:10.1119/1.17411). It's a apparently shows that for certain conditions (such as the balanced knife you mentioned, or a particle in a field that would accelerate it away from the origin proportionally to it's distance) Newton's equations of motion have non-unique solutions, although I confess that the author rather lost me during some of his leaps in mathematics. The discussion section is interesting, a couple of key conclusions stood out to me: 'In this sense we may say that Newton's equation has a unique solution even for singular forces like x1/3 but x(0)=0 and derivative(x(0))=0 in such cases do not uniquely specify the initial state.' and 'Infinitesimal disturbance in position or velocity will change the state and one of the other solutions will become effective.'
From what I have understood from the paper, the author seems to be mostly pointing out that there are certain conditions under which Newton's equations do not have a unique solution, but that in reality a deterministic, but chaotic, outcome will occur due to infinitesimal disturbances. Ultimately, no matter how carefully you balance the knife, it's going to fall over, and the direction it falls will be determined by a multitude of forces rather than pure chance.
@bunchberry@lemmy.world has also made a thoughtful reply regarding quantum field theory and it's implications on determinism, and I need to respond to that too as it's a fascinating, if baffling, topic.
Your question about predicting your own future is interesting; you're making the assumption that a prediction must continue to be true after the point at which it is made, but I would suggest that you can resolve the apparent contradiction by considering that any prediction of the future is only true at the instant it is made. After all, if someone else predicted your future, wrote it down, but did not tell you, you would eat the avocado, however seen as you changed the conditions of your future by gaining additional information the result changed. If you predicted your future a second time, directly after having resolved to not eat the avocado, the prediction would have you not eating it.
If we assume the universe is deterministic, and that we have the ability to perfectly replicate it and run that replica forward in time without time passing in our universe it would seem that we could accurately predict the future of our universe just be seeing what happened in the replica. However, that would involve the replica creating it's own replica as it would evolve in exactly the same way as our universe. That replica would create it's own replica, and so on. I'm not quite sure of what the implications of that are, and it's late here, so I'm going to have to call it a night, but if if could be done it would be a clear way to distinguish between a random or non-deterministic universe and a chaotic one. If the predictions sometimes proved incorrect it would suggest true randomness rather than just a chaotic system.
A dinosaur skeleton in a spacesuit.
It's a really interesting question actually. In my previous answer I was alluding to the fact that computers typically use pseudorandom number generators, whose output appears random but is actually entirely deterministic.
In real life I think a similar situation holds. First we have to make a distinction between a system having randomness; a completely unpredictable outcome and being chaotic; where the outcome is theoretically predictable but varies significantly with even tiny changes in input.
For instance, most people would say a dice roll is random, but physics would suggest it is chaotic instead. If you could role the dice twice in exactly the same way, you'd get the same result both times as there is nothing that could change the outcome.
For there to be true randomness, something would have to change the energy level of the dice, and we've controlled for that by requiring both throws to be exactly the same.
However, you cannot role the dice exactly the same way twice as exactly means having the entire universe the same, which is obviously impossible.
Applying this reasoning to everything leads to the conclusions that a) there is no randomness, just chaotic results, and b) that this is indistinguishable from true randomness as we cannot determine the starting condition of any chaotic system accurately enough to predict its outcome.
I know that quantum physics has something to say about this, but I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable to fully grasp what it is saying.
So, ultimately I don't believe in 'true randomness', but in a chaotic universe instead.
You've probably just got a really long period pseudorandom number generator. No need to flaunt it, not all of us are so blessed! ;)
Put the side back on your case, and then you don't have to look at it. ;)
That was definitely worth more than two cents. A good and thorough overview of what memes are. Thank you for making the point that memes are ideas not just jokes. The knowledge that rubbing two sticks together can start a fire is a meme.