homura1650

@homura1650@lemmy.world

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Exactly Six Months Ago, the CEO of Anthropic Said That in Six Months AI Would Be Writing 90 Percent of Code⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  New hires are often worse than useless. The effort that experienced developers spend assisting them is more than it would take those developers to do the work themselves.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Desiccant dehumidifiers are fascinating... but not for everyone [29:19]⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  If you are running an AC, you might be able modify it to reduce the humidity.

  AC units naturally dehumidify (as TC points out, they are essentially the same thing as traditional dehumidifiers). However, the amount of moisture they pull out is mostly related to how long they are running, not how cold they can get. This means that if you have an overpowered AC, you get less dehumidifying effect because the AC is on less.

  Some ACs let you reduce their power, which will increase their duty cycle and increase the amount of water they pull out of the air. It also helps improve their lifespan as they need to cycle less.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨nooo my genderinos⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Where in those axioms does it say that ↑ = {0|∗} = {0 | {0|0} } is not a number? No where, that’s where!

  The actual reason that ↑ is simply that it is too ill behaved. The stuff I thought were the “numbers” of combinatorical game are actually just called Conway games. Conway numbers are defined very almost identically to Conway games, but with an added constraint that makes them a much better behaved subset of Conway games.

  I suppose you could call this an axiom of combinatorical game theory; but at that point you are essentially just calling every definition an axiom.

  <s> Getting back to my original point; this distinction just goes to show how small minded mathematicians are! Under Conway’s supposed “reasonable” definition of a number, nimbers are merely games, not proper numbers. However, the nimbers are a perfectly good infinite field of characteristic 2. You can’t seriously expect me to believe that those are not numbers! </s>

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨nooo my genderinos⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  I was going to make a comment about surreal numbers not being numbers. But I did a bit of fact checking and it looks like all of the values I was objecting to are not considered surreal numbers, but rather pseudo numbers.

  I find this outrageous. Why can’t ↑ be a number? What even is a number that would exclude it and leave in all of your so-called numbers?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Women are anonymously spilling tea about men in their cities on viral app⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  And what is the EU going to do about it? Governing bodies can declare extraterritorial laws all they want, but they are meaningless unless they have a way to enforce them.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨People angry that Superman represents kindness are outright admitting that they don't want to be good people⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  So he’s an anchor baby? The reason we need to repeal birthright citizenship?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨USA 🇺🇸 USA 🇺🇸 USA⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  I’m going to take this as an opportunity to point out that bees are a type of fish in California.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Attorney General: ‘Everyone is Welcome Here’ sign cannot be displayed in Idaho schools⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  Tolerance, inclusivity, and integration.

  To put this into perspective, the legal fact that “everyone”[0] is welcome in a given public school was not established until 1954 with Brown v Board of Education. And segregationists lost there mind over this.

  In 1957, president Eisenhower had the 101st airborne division invade Little Rock High School, after Arkansas deployed it’s national guard to block black students from entering.

  [0] In terms of race. Restricting access to schools based on home address remains common, and has ended being used as a way to effectively segregate schools without violating Brown.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Tiger Predators⁩ ⁨⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  All models are wrong, but some are useful. Thinking of evolved features as having a purpose is wrong, but it is also incredibly useful.

  Why do we have eyes? In some sense, there is no reason, just a sequence of random coincidences, combined with a slightly non-randon bias refered to as “survival of the fittest” (itself an incorrect model).

  However, saying that we have eyes to see has incredible explanatory power, which makes it a useful model. Just like Newton’s law of Universal gravity. We’ve known it that is wrong for a century at this point, but most of the time still talk as if it’s true, because it is useful.