palebluethought @ palebluethought @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

96

Joined

2 yr. ago

I don't think of either of them as having any specific regional accent at all. I think they just have somewhat similar voices and mannerisms

You are so gullible

Psychonauts 1/2. The first game literally takes place at a summer camp. Second one has basically the same vibe.

I almost hesitate to bring up the other problems with your plan since, obviously the total monstrosity of it. But that's anyway pretty well covered so I'll just throw in that blowing enough nukes to kill that many people would create considerably worse environmental disaster

"digestible" and "nutritious" aren't social constructs, so no. If your body can transform it chemically in a way that produces energy, it's food. Otherwise it's not. The same things are food regardless of your culture.

I'm really trying to make this one make sense, but it's just not happening. Can you rephrase?

Everyone is talking about dominant and recessive genes, so I just want to clarify a couple things.

The way your body directly uses genes is as a blueprint to construct proteins. Your cells are always producing proteins from the genes in all your chromosomes. It has complex ways of regulating how much of each it produces, but your body doesn't care what chromosome it's coming from. Once an embryo is fertilized, there's really no distinction between "mom" chromosomes or "dad" chromosomes, as far as the embryo and its protein machinery are concerned.

"Dominant" and "recessive" characterization is about how those proteins affect your body at the macro scale, not whether your body actually uses the gene and produces its proteins -- it always does that. For example, brown hair is a dominant trait, and blonde is recessive. But this is because producing any amount of brown pigment will make your hair brown, regardless of what other pigments you're making, simply because it's darker. Literally the same as combining blonde and brown paint. It has nothing to do with whether the genes are actually being expressed -- the brown hair gene doesn't stop the blonde hair gene from making its pigments.

Perhaps "always-on display" is clearer? Keeps it from turning off when idle

Chemists learn it without being taught linear algebra ¯(ツ)_/¯

Why would anyone stop using those standards? You seem very confused about the incentives for adopting standards. Sure, maybe US-driven standards were chosen over other possibilities partly because of political environment, but once you have a perfectly good standard adopted you're not just going to throw it out because the original author isn't cool anymore. You don't need a dominant power to adopt standards.

And for being "slightly political" and "focused on the standards," your post sure does spend the majority of its time talking about only politics and not about standards at all

Sure, but now you're talking about running a physical simulation of neurons. Real neurons aren't just electrical circuits. Not only do they evolve rapidly over time, they're powerfully influenced by their chemical environment, which is controlled by your body's other systems, and so on. These aren't just minor factors, they're central parts of how your brain works.

Yes, in principle, we can (and have, to some extent) run physical simulations of neurons down to the molecular resolution necessary to accomplish this. But the computational power required to do that is massively, like billions of times, more expensive than the "neural networks" we have today, which are really just us anthropomorphizing a bunch of matrix multiplication.

It's simply not feasible to do this at a scale large enough to be useful, even with all the computation on Earth.

"allowed" by who?

I mean if we go wide enough, Descartes was talking about it in 1641

In addition to what others said, the way you perceive light intensity is not linear. Between your eye adjusting to changing light levels and just the way your brains visual centers work, it's closer to logarithmic. Indoor lighting at night probably feels like, what, 10% of the brightness of daylight? In reality it's less than 1%, sometimes closer to 0.1%.

Legally, we adopted the metric system in the 70s, so more than "a few years" I'd say

100% on the "lots of missing 'how's" point. You skipped the "ban lobbying" one, which is probably the second biggest "how" after the gerrymandering.

Lobbying is not some official policy or process. Senators don't have "lobbying hours." Lobbying is basically just "being at lunches and parties that politicians are at." Unless you're proposing Congress not be allowed to go out in public and live as secluded monks, I don't see how you "abolish" it..

It's still lemmy, but the mander.xyz instance is exactly this for science

Other than maybe a few very rote, boilerplate types of development, all this shit about replacing coders is almost entirely noise made by either the wishful thinking of oligarchs or credulous repetition of that wishful thinking by clueless journalists.

But it's still a pretty rough time to be just getting into tech, just because of the state of the job market.

Uh... Ask, I guess?

Yeah, it has all the same problems that (pre-Musk) Twitter did. Centralization was never the problem, turns out. IMO it's just the basic central premise that everyone is talking to everyone, all the time. When your brain does that, it's called a seizure.

Plus tons and tons of furries, which like... you do you, but it becomes a huge ongoing effort just to keep furry porn out of a lot of the feeds, if that's not your bag.