thebestaquaman
@thebestaquaman@lemmy.world
- Comment on omg hes just like me 1 week ago:
They go through the same hole as the mouth in the end, though.
Yes, but they’re distinct openings, which means we’re not topologically equivalent to a doughnut when you take them into account. Topological equivalence implies that you can transform one object into another without changing the number of openings. Classic example is a doughnut and a coffee mug (the handle of a coffee mug is the opening). A human would be equivalent to a doughnut with two holes poked through the side into the middle.
- Comment on omg hes just like me 1 week ago:
Two more out the nose
- Comment on The Danish Pride Flag 1 week ago:
Any political party has a variety of “factions” that have different opinions on different topics. The kind of system you’re seeing here is what happens when these “factions” have a lower bar for splitting out and forming their own party. In practice, this means that instead of having a binary or ternary split in the parliament, you get a smoother transition between the extremes, so it’s much easier to find parties that will collaborate.
If you have only two or three parties, the distance between them will typically be so large that they can’t really collaborate on anything. However, when you have 6-8 parties, you’ll typically be able to find a group of 3-4 parties that are able to form a majority compromise on any given issue. Collaboration becomes more fluid (instead of constant “us vs. them”), compromises become easier, and voters get to express a more nuanced opinion at the polls (not just “left vs. right”, but “I want left-wing tax policies, combined with this specific environmental profile, and these specific stances on education”).
This only becomes dysfunctional if the parties/politicians are unable to collaborate and compromise effectively. However, countries with a parliament like the one you see here will typically foster politicians that are able to collaborate and compromise. You won’t survive as a politician in this kind of parliament if you’re a hardliner that refuses to budge on anything.
- Comment on this keeps happening 1 week ago:
Lemme stick my hands in those fissures!
- Comment on What's the weirdest argument you've gotten into with someone? 2 weeks ago:
The worst conceivable argument: When someone tries to shut you down by claiming that “you’re always so combatative, why can’t you just let this go?”
My brother in Christ… you are arguing with me. You are probably being at least as combative as myself. Why can’t YOU just let this go? And of course, if you do anything other than let them have their way, they take that as proof that you never let anything pass.
- Comment on Jensen Huang says Nvidia engineers should use AI tokens worth half their annual salary every year to be fully productive 2 weeks ago:
Which is still utterly absurd, because it implies that a harder working dev would be spending more time chatting to a bot.
- Comment on how is lemmy funded? 2 weeks ago:
Awesome, thanks!
- Comment on how is lemmy funded? 2 weeks ago:
I’ve been thinking of self-hosting a server (and some other stuff)for a while. I hope you don’t mind that I post this comment just so I (hopefully) can try getting back to you for tips when I get around to buying the hardware.
- Comment on French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle tracked via Strava activity in OPSEC failure 2 weeks ago:
I agree with the premise of “simple but hard”. However, I still want to underscore that large areas of the ocean will at any given time be covered in clouds or fog. Sure, once you find the ship the first time, you’ve narrowed your search radius significantly, but a ship that can move at 30 knots can move around 1500 nautical miles (2800 km) without being seen under just 48 hours of cloud cover. That means any intel on the position of a ship carrying weapons that can easily strike at ranges of 500-1000 km is fresh produce. Just a day after you spotted that ship, it can have moved almost 1500 km, and if you lose track of it under clouds during your next satellite pass, it can suddenly be 3000 km from where you last spotted it.
What this means is that the “hard” element here is significant. Even the “simple” element becomes complicated by stuff like night time and cloud cover. All this taken into account, there are very few countries in the world with enough surveillance satellites and processing capacity to actually keep a pin on a ship at sea over any significant period of time.
- Comment on Ope 2 weeks ago:
“Urolettelse” is probably what you would get in Norwegian, the German equivalent would probably be very similar. It’s not an established word, but people would probably understand your vibe if you used it.
- Comment on Ope 2 weeks ago:
To be absolutely fair: “Shot down” usually means the pilot was either killed, or had to bail, and that the jet crashed uncontrollably into the ground and was completely destroyed. It’s pretty common to differentiate between “shot down” and “hit, but was able to land”.
- Comment on AI still doesn't work very well, businesses are faking it, and a reckoning is coming 2 weeks ago:
One of the worst things about this is that the person vibe coding just ends up shitting on the reviewers time. Like… you couldn’t even bother to write a real PR, and now you want me to spend time filtering your shit? Fuck off.
- Comment on AI still doesn't work very well, businesses are faking it, and a reckoning is coming 2 weeks ago:
It’s 3.7x more lines of code that performs 2,000 times worse than the actual SQLite.
Pretty much my experience with LLM coding agents. They’ll write a bunch of stuff, and come with all kinds of arguments about why what they’re doing is in fact optimal and perfect. If you know what you’re doing, you’ll quickly find a bunch of over-complicating things and just plain pitfalls. I’ve never been able to understand the people that claim LLMs can build entire projects (the people that say stuff like “I never write my own code anymore”), since I’ve always found it to be pretty trash at anything beyond trivial tasks.
Of course, it makes sense that it’ll elaborate endlessly about how perfect its solution is, because it’s a glorified auto-complete, and there’s plenty of training data with people explaining why “solution X is better”.
- Comment on Unconventional strategy. 3 weeks ago:
They don’t think gender and race are social constructs.
Whether they think that has nothing to do with whether they believe there’s an objective answer to the question. What they do, however, is take positions that are in blatant violation of the observable facts around them. The whole “alternative facts” this is basically an exercise in “taking responsibility for your perceptions”, and choosing to believe whatever you think is right, regardless of the objective reality around you.
- Comment on Unconventional strategy. 3 weeks ago:
What you’re saying makes no sense… you drawing an equivalence from the existence of an objective reality to some people controlling how that reality is perceived. If anything, you gotten it all flipped around: If reality is subjective (which itself is absurd) then any interpretation of it is equally valid. In that case, anyone is free to believe in their own reality, regardless of the objective facts that prove them wrong. This is basically what’s going on with the MAGA movement: A bunch of people deciding that “reality is what I want it to be”, and acting based on “alternative facts” in complete disregard for the objective, observable, facts around them.
- Comment on Why conservative men repeatedly crash Grindr 3 weeks ago:
It’s literally a face swap based on someone pulling a funny face. It’s one of the oldest internet jokes there is, and has nothing to do with body shaming, misogyny, or anything of the sort.
- Comment on Unconventional strategy. 3 weeks ago:
That doesn’t even remotely answer my question though? My impression was that you have some kind of belief that an objective reality doesn’t exist in the first place, and that just doesn’t make any kind of sense to me.
- Comment on Unconventional strategy. 3 weeks ago:
Sure. They just occupied, blockaded and displaced a shitload of the people that now live in Lebanon, because their homes were stolen and their families were killed by Israelis.
- Comment on Unconventional strategy. 3 weeks ago:
You can’t both believe something and doubt it.
I have beliefs about what I think is the most probable truth. That means I can both believe something is true, and acknowledge the probability that I’m wrong. Whenever my beliefs change, there’s necessarily a period where I gradually come to see the probability that I’m wrong as larger than the probability that I’m right, at which point my beliefs about what is right change. However, the acknowledgement that I may still be wrong remains.
- Comment on Unconventional strategy. 3 weeks ago:
I honestly don’t even think I get your position here. Do you somehow not believe that you live in some kind of objective reality together with the rest of us? Do you think this is all just going on in your head? Like… is this some kind of far-out simulation theory thing? Even if we do live in a simulation, that simulation itself must exist in some kind of “real world”.
Please explain
- Comment on Unconventional strategy. 3 weeks ago:
Yeah. When someone comes to your house, shoots your parents, kicks you out, and “settles” in your neighbourhood you should just leave them alone. After all, they would never have done that if you hadn’t… shot rockets at them after they did it??
- Comment on [deleted] 3 weeks ago:
I’ve had a couple of those situations. In all cases it was a friend that I ended up getting horny with, and then we figured “why not?”. In all cases, the answer turned out to be that shit quickly gets complicated when people develop new feelings because they’re sleeping together.
Frankly, I have no issue with polyamorous people, but I honestly can’t understand how they get it to work. Every time I’ve slept with someone repeatedly over an extended period of time, it ended up fundamentally changing our relationship to the point where being with anyone else became an implicit no-go. I have no explanation for exactly why but those feelings just developed, no matter how much we promised each other they wouldn’t, and pretended they didn’t.
- Comment on [deleted] 3 weeks ago:
Good luck man… I’ve been through a couple of these variants but with my (current) SO of quite some time I feel like I’ve found the center. That doesn’t mean it’s never complicated, but it means we’ve learned to deal with and work through a lot of complicated stuff. I honestly believe the most important ingredient in getting to that center is the will to see the best in each other and work through whatever life throws your way.
- Comment on Put the shoes on 3 weeks ago:
However, naked with just socks is still more naked than just naked.
- Comment on Put the shoes on 3 weeks ago:
Empirical evidence that wearing shoes makes you more naked: The only thing hotter than a naked woman is a naked woman with heels.
- Comment on Claude Code deletes developers' production setup, including its database and snapshots — 2.5 years of records were nuked in an instant 4 weeks ago:
You can fine-grain nr. 2 even more: You can give access to e.g. modify files only in a certain sub-tree, or run only specific commands with only specific options.
A restrictive yet quite safe approach is to only permit e.g.
git add,git commit, and only allow changes to files under the VC. That effectively prevents any irreversible damage, without requiring you to manually approve all the time. - Comment on Claude Code deletes developers' production setup, including its database and snapshots — 2.5 years of records were nuked in an instant 4 weeks ago:
You’re absolutely right. I mostly run a pretty simple local model though, so it’s not like it’s very expensive either.
- Comment on Claude Code deletes developers' production setup, including its database and snapshots — 2.5 years of records were nuked in an instant 4 weeks ago:
Saying that it can serve the same purpose does not mean that I mean the two are equivalent in every aspect.
Just based on how you’ve responded so far it seems like you’re wilfully misinterpreting how I actually use an LLM for this purpose, especially with responses referring to LLMs causing people to commit suicide and offloading decision making or the thought process itself to an LLM.
- Comment on Claude Code deletes developers' production setup, including its database and snapshots — 2.5 years of records were nuked in an instant 4 weeks ago:
It really seems like you’re wilfully misinterpreting what I’m writing.
- Comment on Claude Code deletes developers' production setup, including its database and snapshots — 2.5 years of records were nuked in an instant 4 weeks ago:
That is correct. However, an LLM and a rubber duck have in common that they are inanimate objects that I can use as targets when formulating my thoughts and ideas. The LLM can also respond to things like “what part of that was unclear”, to help keep my thoughts flowing. NOTE: The point of asking an LLM “what part of that was unclear” is NOT that it has a qualified answer, but rather that it’s a completely unqualified prompt to explain a part of the process more thoroughly.
This is a very well established process: Whether you use an actual rubber duck, your dog, writing a blog post / personal memo (I do the last quite often) or explaining your problem to a friend that’s not at all in the field. The point is to have some kind of process that helps you keep your thoughts flowing and touching in on topics you might not think are crucial, thus helping you find a solution. The toddler that answers every explanation with “why?” can be ideal for this, and an LLM can emulate it quite well in a workplace environment.