Ookami38
@Ookami38@sh.itjust.works
- Comment on What good thing just happened in your life? 15 hours ago:
Appreciate it! It’s sure a load off.
- Comment on What good thing just happened in your life? 15 hours ago:
Thanks. Hoping it’s a turning point, a catalyst for her to finally stop smoking, and make other positive changes in her life.
- Comment on What good thing just happened in your life? 1 day ago:
Mums biopsy results came back negative. Given what we knew going in, I was expecting that to be the case, but good to have it confirmed.
- Comment on Terrified friends burn to death trapped in Tesla as doors won't open after crash 4 days ago:
Clearly Tesla opted for the fail-deadly route instead of the fail-safe route.
- Comment on Universe would die before monkey with keyboard writes Shakespeare, study finds 2 weeks ago:
The “in” part apparently.
- Comment on Capsaicin 2 weeks ago:
I appreciate your vision.
- Comment on Typing monkey would be unable to produce 'Hamlet' within the lifetime of the universe, study finds 2 weeks ago:
Oh neat. This is all taxonomy that is well beyond me. My defense of calling humans monkeys is that everyone does it, and that’s how language works. Glad to know I’m correct too, technically lol
- Comment on Typing monkey would be unable to produce 'Hamlet' within the lifetime of the universe, study finds 2 weeks ago:
Ol Bill Shakespeare. He wrote Hamlet, one correct letter at a time.
- Comment on Typing monkey would be unable to produce 'Hamlet' within the lifetime of the universe, study finds 2 weeks ago:
To be entirely fair, apes aren’t monkeys. I don’t think that particular distinction is really all that relevant to the discussion, but technically…
- Comment on Typing monkey would be unable to produce 'Hamlet' within the lifetime of the universe, study finds 2 weeks ago:
Technically true, I think it still fits for the layman.
- Comment on Typing monkey would be unable to produce 'Hamlet' within the lifetime of the universe, study finds 2 weeks ago:
Gyrategun. Shiversword. Vibratevibrator. Fidgetfalchion.
- Comment on Typing monkey would be unable to produce 'Hamlet' within the lifetime of the universe, study finds 2 weeks ago:
I would place money on some enthusiast somewhere having typed up Hamlet on a typewriter just for kicks. Surely in the hundreds of years of overlap between humanity, Hamlet, and typewriters, it’s happened once. I’d be more concerned with typos.
- Comment on Typing monkey would be unable to produce 'Hamlet' within the lifetime of the universe, study finds 2 weeks ago:
I think the point is less about any kind of route to Hamlet, and more about the absurdity of infinite tries in a finite space(time). There are a finite (but extremely large) number of configurations of English characters in a work the length of Hamlet. If you have truly an infinite number of attempts (monkeys, time, or both are actually infinite) and the trials are all truly random (every character is guaranteed to have the same chance as every other) then you will necessarily arrive at that configuration eventually.
As far as your process, of procedurally generating each letter one by one until you have the completed works, we actually have a monkey who more or less did that already. His name is William.
- Comment on Typing monkey would be unable to produce 'Hamlet' within the lifetime of the universe, study finds 2 weeks ago:
Why must the concept of time before the big bang (or after our heat death) exist in our physical reality for us to speculate about theoretical infinities past those? The thought experiment is about ~infinite~ time, not all the time in our limited universe. A lot of things happen at infinity that break down as soon as you add a limit, but we’re not talking limits when we’re talking infinity.
- Comment on Support local bands 2 weeks ago:
Could you not write fuck so much please?
But seriously, support local in general.
- Comment on Blessica Blimpson 3 weeks ago:
Man, I wish I had a beefbot…
- Comment on YSK that United has significantly escalated their war against basic economy passengers 3 weeks ago:
My sarcastic asshole would have snapped the wheels off the bag if that’s the distinction they want to have.
- Comment on Large Boeing Satellite Suddenly Explodes Into Pieces 3 weeks ago:
What, was it blowing a whistle?
- Comment on Honey 4 weeks ago:
There is no ethical consumption, afterall. Pick the hill that works best for you, and die on it I suppose.
- Comment on I'm going insane 1 month ago:
Well at least you didn’t call my body pasty white, I haven’t been to the lake as much as I wanted this year.
Joking aside, I believe vsauce had a short about this, was useful to get a visual.
- Comment on There you go little guy 1 month ago:
I address all of this in other areas in this thread. I don’t feel like rehashing it with you, given your unwarranted aggression out of the gate. If you want to read some actual rebuttal, go for it. Otherwise, enjoy your life.
- Comment on There you go little guy 1 month ago:
I didn’t say it was created to hinder the poor.
I said fines DISPROPORTIONATELY PUNISH THE POOR.
If you have $1000, a $200 fine is 20% of your money.
If you have $2,000,000 a fine of $200 is . 0001% of your money, basically nothing.
This means that, relative to their money, a poorer person hurts more from the same fine. This is a BAD IDEA for enforcing rules everyone is supposed to follow. Essentially, we’re encouraging people to drive slow, unless they can pay the toll for speeding.
There are ways to mitigate this - sliding scale fines, for instance. I personally don’t like fines as punishments in general, though. I’d rather use neutral traffic calming features, that always invariably impact people who use the route the same, and make it a criminal offense to drive recklessly, akin to drunk driving.
- Comment on There you go little guy 1 month ago:
There are a lot of clarifying information needed regarding rural fatalities. Are most of the fatalities from people who live in the area, or are they people passing through? What about the proportion of fatal:nonfatal accidents? Is it that you’re less likely to get into an accident, but when you do it’s more likely to be fatal?
Overall, like I said, I don’t really have any ideas for change for rural areas, except maybe limiting the routes trucks can take, and maybe more abundant rest areas. I truly think cars are practically a requirement as you get outside of the city, and don’t really have any notion on how to fix their issues without introducing more or worse ones.
- Comment on There you go little guy 1 month ago:
The speed limit, in this scenario, would be set at what is absolutely, inarguably, a dangerous speed. A speed at which NO ONE can argue what you’re doing is dangerous. The bulk of speed management would be done by better urban planning. If no one feels safe going over 50, yeah, you may have the rare dumbass pushing it, but you’re always going to have dumbasses.
- Comment on There you go little guy 1 month ago:
((yeah it seems like there’s a down vote hitting each comment in this thread hahah. Fwiw, same sentiments to you, very good points.))
- Comment on There you go little guy 1 month ago:
I’m not sure what I said to make you reply about traffic jams? Want to elaborate?
- Comment on There you go little guy 1 month ago:
Rural areas are an interesting case, admittedly. Most of my personal suggestions are for urban areas, even so far as my general loathe of cars - they suck in cities but are practically required for rural living.
I’d be curious to see the difference in fatalities for an optimally set up city versus a current rural setup. My gut tells me that, just due to the relatively sparse density of cars, rural driving is already significantly safer, and if you DO drive like shit, you’re likely to only injure yourself.
Ultimately, rural and urban driving are COMPLETELY different beasts, and what works for one doesn’t for another.
- Comment on There you go little guy 1 month ago:
And as long as the penalty is fines, it’s literally “pay the toll to go fast”. At very best, this leaves a class of people completely unimpacted by traffic enforcement. But, without a drastic change in the public perception of speed limits, we can’t just say “ok 1 mph over is now criminal. Go to jail.” That’ll do way more harm than good.
- Comment on There you go little guy 1 month ago:
I can broadly agree with these sentiments. I think speed limits, as they’re implemented right now, are largely folly and should be replaced with something that can’t be abused for revenue. And even if we agree that MOST cameras and speed fines aren’t revenue focused, we HAVE to acknowledge the possibility of abuse.
I think in an ideal world, I’d set speed limits to be higher than they are now - say, (spitballing) 100mph for interstates. It’s HARD enforced, at even 1mph over, and a criminal offense. I know this level of enforcement is already in place, technically - usually speeds like, 20 over are considered criminal - but it’s subject to too much discretion. Those cases need to be enforced almost unilaterally.
From there, addressing the rest of the speed issue is the job of urban planners. Make the roads just not fun)safe, convenient, whatever) to drive at speeds even approaching the limit. From there, enforcement becomes far more justifiable, and will consistently target people driving the most unsafe.
Obviously, reckless driving and other such penalties would be in place, to catch anything else reckless, and that’s going to be case-by-case, still subject to discretion, but at least it’s something.
- Comment on There you go little guy 1 month ago:
I don’t disagree with anything you said. Slowing down is a good thing.
The problem I have with this approach is that speed limits either do nothing, or do marginal work compared to designing roads that aren’t able to be driven at excessive speeds. Narrower lanes, chicanes, medians, speed bumps or cushions - all VASTLY more effective at actually slowing traffic than a camera or cop saying “hey! Slow down or pay the toll!”