• 0 Posts
  • 180 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 22nd, 2023

help-circle
  • I was gonna disagree, but I couldn’t actually think of a functioning stateless ideology which allows private property. Anarchism is inherently for abolishing private property, so that’s out already. That mostly just leaves you with "anarcho-"capitalism which is just replacing the government with an ultra-capitalist power structure and decimating social mobility, it’s just an undemocratic state but shittier…





  • force@lemmy.worldtoScience Memes@mander.xyzI just cited myself.
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Lol what? How did you conclude that if 9x = 5 then x = 1? Surely you didn’t pass algebra in high school, otherwise you could see that getting x from 9x = 5 requires dividing both sides by 9, which yields x = 5/9, i.e. 0.555... = 5/9 since x = 0.555....

    Also, you shouldn’t just use uppercase X in place of lowercase x or vice versa. Case is usually significant for variable names.


  • force@lemmy.worldtoScience Memes@mander.xyzI just cited myself.
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Pi isn’t a fraction – it’s an irrational number, i.e. a number with no fractional form in integer bases; as opposed to rational numbers, which are defined as being able to be expressed as a ratio of two integers (a fraction). Furthermore, π a transcendental number, meaning it’s never a solution to f(x) = 0, where f(x) is a non-zero finite-degree polynomial expression with rational coefficients. That’s like, literally part of the definition. They cannot be compared to rational numbers like fractions.

    Since |r|<1 => ∑[n=1, ∞] arⁿ = ar/(1-r), and 0.999... is that sum with a = 9 and r = 1/10 (visually, 0.999... = 9(0.1) + 9(0.01) + 9(0.001) + ...), it’s easy to see after plugging in, 0.999... = 9(1/10) / (1 - 1/10) = 0.9/0.9 = 1). This was a proof present in Euler’s Elements of Algebra.



  • force@lemmy.worldto196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEmoji Rule
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    I’m having a tough time trying to read that, the first part is obviously 「ミスター スパーコル!」 (“misutā supākoru!”/mister sparkle) but the second part is hard to read, I think it says 「ハワー ワリーソ!」(“hawā warīso!”) but it doesn’t make any sense to me. Maybe the ハ is just missing a handakuten and it’s supposed to say “pawā”/power? But idk what the second one is supposed to be. Maybe クリーン (“kurīn”/clean)? But that’s a stretch.


  • “There is no future without electrification. But just electrification will not get us there,”

    Daniel Posen is an associate professor in U of T’s department of civil and mineral engineering, and the Canada Research Chair in system-scale environmental impacts of energy and transport technologies. He agrees electrification is vital. But relying solely on electric vehicles to reduce carbon emissions from transportation may not be enough, especially if we want to do it in time to stop a catastrophic two-degree rise in global temperatures.

    The article you link contradicts you, it clearly suggests that adoption of EVs reduce carbon emissions, but we still need to do more (e.g. ACTUALLY HAVE PUBLIC TRANSIT INFRASTRUCTURE) to prevent a climate catastrophe.




  • Fetuses aren’t living and don’t breathe. They can’t live on their own and all their chemicals come from another human being (via the umbilical cord). This is opposed to the tree, which isn’t reliant on a certain being and instead gets its nutrients by itself through its roots and get oxygen for respiration & carbon dioxide for photosynthesis by itself, not an umbilical cord.

    Trees are undeniably far more independent and living than a fetus. You’re kind of a weirdo for thinking some random small clump of cells is actually equivalent to a human child. I bet I could find basically the same thing in my back yard if I looked hard enough.



  • force@lemmy.worldto196@lemmy.blahaj.zonerule conditions
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    The Red Scare happened because it threatened the American ruling class, and America wasn’t occupied by Nazis in WW2 so they didn’t have the experience of being liberated by mostly leftist rebels. Immediately after WW2, communists and socialists were seen as liberators who freed various countries from Nazi rule, even in the UK where Winston Churchill lost re-election partly due to him going all-in on anti-communism (which the people didn’t like). As a result, Europeans were a lot friendlier to communism and were more open to adopting socialist policies. The US was both the leading capitalist power AND it was very distanced/separated from the oppression and rebellion against the Nazis, so they just saw communists as a threat.



  • Valve already has a game engine you can use – Source – although outside of their own games, it’s not really popular. Otherwise I think it’s moreso that making a good general gaming engine is hard. Like, really hard. If Valve tried to compete with, say, Unreal or Unity, (especially with their relatively small team) it’d more likely than not have no chance at all. They’d need a LOT more manpower, a massive budget, and to hope that they actually make something quality enough to actually be a viable alternative. Even then, though, it doesn’t have the 2 decades of content and design that Unreal and Unity have, which is pretty important. Although I suppose Source does have a lot of user-generated content.

    It’d be a gargantuan investment, a massive risk that has a high likelihood of not turning out well, and even if it were successful it would likely take many years if not over a decade to actually see the benefit of it.

    There’s a good reason most games use an extremely small amount of engines, either that or their own in-house engines. It’s a monumental task to make a great, easy-to-use, generic engine like the ones currently on the market.

    IMO Valve trying to enter the game engine market would just end up being either Godot but worse, or Bevy but worse. It’d be far better if they just created a team to work on a pre-existing open-source engine, although I guess there’s not any money involved in that unless they for some reason used the engine.




  • A lot of the time it’s about being lucky enough be able to have or form connections with rich stupid people. Those kinds are a lot more willing to throw insane amounts of money at someone/some company they vaguely know to do things they know nothing of but hear a lot about.

    Or just working at a company that’s well-known in the area and deals with clients very intimately while the product is being created.

    Sometimes charging more for the same service makes them want it more, to them it means it’s premium programming (as opposed to the off-brand wish dot com programming). But sometimes they demand disgracefully cheap yet world-class service and throw a tantrum when they can’t pay you $5 an hour for a full rebranded recreation of the Amazon web service.


  • Sounds just like Gaijin… although now that I think about it, this sounds worse than Gaijin.

    I love Paradox’ games but man, I really hate Paradox sometimes. I bought all the Stellaris DLCs at the time while they were on sale (about $100, I think it was everything before the update that added espionage) thinking I was supporting the development of intergalactic space genocide & intelligent life cannibalism game, but the more I got into the community the more I realize… the devs kinda fuck the community over a lot. I would normally think “wow, they’re making so many great hits at the same time, the games might be extremely buggy but they really deserve credit” but as time goes on I start to see them more like I see every AAA studio. I guess that’s all you can expect when the company’s stocks are public.

    Also imo you shouldn’t have to pay $300 to experience the full game god damn it! Although they do allow you to play as if you have most DLC when the host does, so I can’t say it’s immorally greedy. It’s something I can appreciate.