kryptonianCodeMonkey
@kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
- Comment on USA President term limits 6 days ago:
Honestly, I would be very surprised if he were disallowed. Not only because, as you said, it is unclear if the 12th amendment eligibility conditions apply to conditions added after the 12th amendment and make no reference to modifying it. But also because the 22nd amendment does not, in fact, specify that someone who has served two terms is ineligible to be President. Rather it is very specifically a condition about being elected to president. If we’re interpreting the constitution strictly literally, the 22nd amendment doesn’t make a new condition for eligibility to be President, only for being elected president. So the 12th amendment would not apply. That may not have been the intent, but if anyone thinks the same Supreme Court that ruled that the President hadls absolute immunity on the use of his presidential powers isn’t going to let Trump slide right through that loophole… well, you could probably convince them it was raining as you piss on their leg.
- Comment on USA President term limits 6 days ago:
The two term limit was set by the 22nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The language in it is that no person may be elected to the office of President for more than two terms. It does not specify any criteria about consecutive terms, meaning it doesn’t matter. They simply can’t be elected more than twice to the office President under any conditions. It also specifies that of they served more than two years as pedicab when they weren’t elected to that office (such as when a VP assumes the office after the President dies), they can’t be elected to the office of President more than once. In other words, 2+ year term of a president after succeeding the previous president whose term ends early, counts as a full term in regard to this 2 term limit.
- Comment on Hummingbird Moths 1 week ago:
Also like shrimp to fairies
- Comment on This feels wrong. I love it. 3 weeks ago:
Imaginary numbers always feel wrong
- Comment on Lemmy should have a community called lemmy_guess 3 weeks ago:
So cool it hurts, apparently?
- Comment on US judge says Google must open Android phones to rival app stores 1 month ago:
It wouldn’t be such a problem if it was just about quality control. But the app stores pocket big bucks from the apps you download, including a large cut of subscriptions to services entirely unrelated to the store just because you downloaded the app through them. If I recall, Google takes something like 20 percent and some takes something like 30 (I can’t recall the exact numbers, just that Apple is marginally worse about it).
For example, I love Dropout, a comedy media platform from the former people at College Humor. They offer a $5.99/month subscription for access to their entire catalog. If I went to their website, created an account and bought a subscription, that is $5.99 directly into the hands of the creators I wish to support. I can also then go download the app and enjoy the same service throught thag account on my phone or other devices.
However, if I go to the app store, download the app, and buy my subscription in it, Dropout now has to pay Google or Apple a sizable chunk of that $5.99. And not just for that month. For every month that follows for the life of that subscription. Just for the benefit of having an app available to users on devices that hold monopolies on these services.
You might be thinking, well, they could just raise the price for the subscriptions when you sign up through the app to offset the extra if i recall correctly. You wowould think that, but no. If I recall correctly, Apple and Google both also require apps to sell subscriptions at the same price as they would be sold outside the apps. If you don’t comply with that, they’ll drop youyour app altogether. That means that everyone has to pay more, whether you got your subscription through the app or not, to offset those extra costs.
There are many other problems, including anti-competitive/antitrust practices, and ironically, shitty quality control. But such things are inevitable with monopolies.
- Comment on Avatar: The Last Airbender Is Getting a AAA RPG With Saber Interactive and Paramount Game Studios - EXCLUSIVE 1 month ago:
It’s kind of hard to have an incredibly varied and versatile powerset in a video game, simply becuase you have a limited set of inputs. So you would normally have a small set of powers that each serve a purpose. But then doing that and still representing 4 elements means each only gets very limited options.
Thinking about it, I can see two ways to make bebending feel powerful, versatile and give a good representation to all elements. 1) maybe the best solution would be to have customizable load outs with various bending powers, and let you switch between those load outs on the fly so you can coordinate a few power sets that work well together but swap them when other sets are more useful to the situation. 2) An interesting idea would be to use situational awareness to execute moves without specific user inputs. For example, you could have a single boost button that uses a different element depending on if the player is on land, water, in the air or dodging (fire rocket!). And you could have a close/melee attack and ranged attack for each element that you can specify, but the exact effect/attack it creates can vary depending on the environment and enemy type of the target. Let it feel a little bit like the character is making decisions, not just you, like Batman in combat in the Arkham games. And of course, there would be a charge up to a special attack that uses the Avatar state and all 4 elements at once.
- Submitted 1 month ago to showerthoughts@lemmy.world | 13 comments
- Comment on If simulation is possible, we could upgrade reality to 4D 1 month ago:
If there were a 4th spatial dimension and you could see in 4 dimensions, yes, you could see the inside of some things that are enclosed in 3 dimensions. It wouldn’t be like x-ray vision exactly though. Think about a sphere in 3d. It is enclosed. When you take 2d projections of the sphere by slicing cross-sections of the ball, from a 2d observer on that plane, they would also see an enclosed circular object. But from the 3rd dimensional observer looking down at that cross section they can see everything enclosed in the circle. From the 4th dimension, then it stands to reason they would have a similar view of a 3 dimensional objects innards. But rather than seeing through the object like in an x-ray, they just see the whole thing laid out in every detail at once like we see the insides of the 2d circle.
- Comment on If simulation is possible, we could upgrade reality to 4D 1 month ago:
I disagree. I think we are very much hardwired to innately understand 3d space in an intuitive level. All else about higher and lower dimensions is learned experientially and/or academically, and it’s near impossible not to understand it in terms that relate to 3 dimensions or math. I also think that thinking about 4 dimensions in relation to 3 dimensions makes it impossible to truly understand 4 dimensional space as a whole. We can describe every detail of our mathematically, but still not be able up visualize it in whole. Regardless, given the fact that there is no 4th spatial dimension, I doubt either of us will ever have a definitive answer.
- Comment on If simulation is possible, we could upgrade reality to 4D 1 month ago:
I’ve read it. Recently actually. It is really cool. It kind of supports my point though. It’s hard for those to both comprehend and describe that have been in higher dimensional spaces and much of what they do describe is in 3 dimensional terms, (enclosed spaces being visible as if by an open top being a good example of trying to comprehend a thing that would be uncomprehendable in 4d through a 3d mindset). Of course, it’s also written by an author that hasn’t actually experienced such things and is also trying to imagine what it would be like to experience his interpretation of the phenomenon, so… not exactly conclusive either way.
- Comment on If simulation is possible, we could upgrade reality to 4D 1 month ago:
Interact with, yes. Process and perceive it as it truly is? I don’t believe so, no.
- Comment on If simulation is possible, we could upgrade reality to 4D 1 month ago:
You are correct that 4d toys (and other games) already simulate 4 spatial dimensions. But those games all display the 4th dimensional space from a 3 dimensional projection. I think what OP is suggesting is creating a game that displays an actual 4 spatial dimensions. I have argued in another comment that I don’t think this is possible in a way that our brains could ever percieve or process due to the limitations of a brain evolved in 3 spatial dimensions.
- Comment on If simulation is possible, we could upgrade reality to 4D 1 month ago:
For clarity the word is perpendicularity. A 4th spatial dimension would have to be perpendicular to all 3 other spatial dimensions.
- Comment on If simulation is possible, we could upgrade reality to 4D 1 month ago:
There’s nothing technically stopping us from simulating 4 spatial dimensions now. In fact, there are several games that utilize a 4th dimension in their gameplay. Here’s 8 examples. The problem is that our brains evolved in 3 spatial dimensions and, even if we can conceive of, define the nature of, and to some degree even indirectly imagine a 4th spacial dimension, our brains are hardwired to think in 3 dimensions and our understanding of a 4th spatial dimension can only be in 3 dimensional terms. The software of our brains, and the hardware of our eyes are simply incapable of perceiving and processing a 4th spatial dimension as it truly is. It would always be filtered through the lens of 3 spatial dimensions, projected into a 3 dimensional form that we can understand.
For a good example of this limitation, we regularly show 3 dimensions in film, tv, animations, video games, etc. projected on 2 dimensional surfaces. We can interpret those 2 dimensional images into an understanding of the 3 dimensional spaces being projected, but A) we do not actually perceived them as 3d. We still only see height and width. Depth is imagined largely based on perceived scale and parallax oocclusion. and B) we are only able to see the 3 dimensional space in our minds because that is how our minds always perceive space. In order to make those 2 dimensional images seem actually 3 dimensional, we have to project different 2 dimensional images to each eye with precise focal lengths and angles to mimic our actual eyesight in 3 dimensional space. Only with that stereoscopic view do we actually see 3 dimensionality with actual depth. Now, with that understanding, that it takes 2 projections in 2d to trick our minds into seeing 3d, how would you trick our perception into seeing 4d? How to we make either our eyes or our brains see whatever the 4th dimensional direction is called? A 3rd eye? No, plenty of animals have more than 3 eyes or even compound eyes, and so only precise 3d. We have to perceive a direction perpendicular to height, width, and depth that does not actually exist. How would you achieve that goal?
I don’t think that is actually possible. I think, like those games in the link, even in a simulation we are stuck playing with the 4th dimension via its interaction with and projection onto 3 dimensions because our brains cannot truly process what a 4th spatial dimension would even be.
- Comment on Would you consider making a sandwich to be "cooking?" 1 month ago:
You can cook in a microwave. But those frozen meals and rice packs are already cooked, you’re just reheating/reconstituting them. I wouldn’t conconsider that cooking, no.
- Comment on Would you consider making a sandwich to be "cooking?" 1 month ago:
Cooked
- Comment on Would you consider making a sandwich to be "cooking?" 1 month ago:
Slap a whole fish down in front of you.
You: “Not cooked”
slice filled of fish off and present it.
You: “Not cooked”
slice filled into small bite size pieces and squirter some neon green horseradish next to it
You: “Dis is cooked!”
?
- Comment on Would you consider making a sandwich to be "cooking?" 1 month ago:
Ceviche is said to be “cooked” with acid, even if that’s not the most accurate term. And most forms of sushi are made with cooked rice, at miminimum, and not uncommonly with other cooked ingredients. So those things kind of muddy the waters for your point. But a clearer example may be something like beef tartare, a garden salad with a vinegarette, or sashimi. Those things are “prepared”, not cooked, because no cooking is involved in their making. Cooking is specifically the preparation of food utilizing heat. Chefs prepare plenty of dishes that do not involve the act of cooking.
- Comment on Would you consider making a sandwich to be "cooking?" 1 month ago:
“Cooking” to me, requires the combination of ingredients AND heating them to create a new thing. Making a grilled cheese is basic, but cooking. Slapping meat, cheese and veg on bread is not cooking.
- Comment on Square! 1 month ago:
Out of 4 lines
- Comment on Is there a difference in meaning between the words *people* and *persons*? 2 months ago:
Seconded. They are not laughing at your misuse of the word grammatically. They are laughing at the unintentional parallel to the way bigots talk about the people they target with their hate/insults. For a joke, they are twisting the meaning of your words to imply that when you say “those people” you are referring to some minority or marginalized group in a derogatory way. “Those people are loud” is an innocent statement on it’s own when referring to a group of people being disdisruptive. But “Those people are loud” when “those people” refers to an entire demographic of people is a derogatory stereotype. “What do you mean thoooose people?”
- Comment on Magic 2 months ago:
And 2 is.
- Comment on they tricked us 2 months ago:
I understood that reference.
- Comment on Sony announces the PS5 Pro with a larger GPU, advanced ray tracing, and AI upscaling 2 months ago:
Would be funnier if only scalper bought it abs couldn’t unload them.
- Comment on [deleted] 2 months ago:
Again, depends on the specifics. The dude tries to cheat all the time and he should be locked up. That doesn’t mean that the majority won’t still vote for him, as fucking insane as that is
- Comment on [deleted] 2 months ago:
If it’s by a hairs breadth, no. Depends on the specifics
- Comment on [deleted] 2 months ago:
“Just”? Tit for tat is not “just”, revenge is not “just”. Truth and consequences are just. If he actually didn’t win the election and it was truly fraud and cheating that got him the win, then yes, it would be just to bring that truth to light and execute the consequences of that truth. If he won fair and square, pretending like he didn’t is not just simply because he did it before.
- Comment on Why is Kamala Harris being held at such a higher standard than Trump this election? 2 months ago:
Because apparently half of the voters in this country are either greedy corporate cunts, wealthy sociopaths, MAGA morons, authoritarian Christian ideologue crazies, psuedo-intellectual “centrists”/independents that somehow conflate basic human respect for minorities and outright fascism as “both sides are the same”, or some combination thereof. Those type of people are the type that thing the ends always justify the means and that the ends they want is a US that looks like a cross between A Handmaid’s Tale, Atlas Shrugged, and modern day Russia. It is one of the most disheartening realizations of my adult life to learn that so many of your fellow Americans are fucking vile people.
Do keep in mind, that roughly half of voters is not the same as roughly half of Americans. The highest turnout of voting eligible people in the last century was only 66.6% in 2020. Basically every Trump nut votes. It is there entire reason for being these days, to support and vote for Trump. And in 2020, Trump only got 46.9% of the popular vote, i.e. only 33.03% of the US voting eligible actually cast a vote for Trump. The rest of us are either actively trying to stop Trump or are at least not actively supporting him. The absolute BEST thing we can do as a country is to bump those numbers up. There is no excuse for 1 in 3 people to not vote leaving another 1 in 3 people to have disproportionate power over everyone else’s lives. Complacency and apathy or counting on enough others to do their civic duty so you don’t have to is how Trump wins again. Vote and make every single person you know go vote too. Tell them to register. Tell them to vote early if that is more convenient for them. Whatever. Just go vote.
- Comment on I'm so sorry 2 months ago:
No.