iglou
@iglou@programming.dev
- Comment on Delta moves toward eliminating set prices in favor of AI that determines how much you personally will pay for a ticket 24 minutes ago:
It’s very, very, very likely to take into accounts a bunch of data bought from all the wonderful companies that track all your habits, especially purchasing habits.
- Comment on Release 1.7.2 · LibreTranslate - A FOSS, self-hosted, offline capable Machine Translation API 8 hours ago:
No, that’s if you use their hosted service. It’s free to self-host.
- Comment on Microplastics will be the "boomers all have lead poisoning" of millennials 4 days ago:
Gen Z is already named “Zoomers”, but it’s not aticking as much as “Gen Z”.
- Comment on Microplastics will be the "boomers all have lead poisoning" of millennials 4 days ago:
Millenials are also called Gen Y. Millenials just happens to have sticked more. And Gen Z is also called Zoomers.
- Comment on What are the chances 1 week ago:
Plenty of countries where 35-40h/week, or even less, is the norm
- Comment on A fake Facebook event disguised as a math problem has been one of its top posts for 6 months 2 weeks ago:
No it isn’t.
Yes, it is.
No it isn’t. The Quotient is defined as the number obtained when you divide the Dividend by the Divisor. Here it is straight out of Euler…
I’m defining the division operation, not the quotient. Yes, the quotient is obtained by dividing… Now define dividing.
Emphasis on “alternative”, not actual.
The actual is the one I gave. I did not give the alternative definitions. That’s why I said they are also defined based on a multiplication, implying the non-alternative ones (understand, the avtual one) was the one I gave.
Feel free to send your entire Euler document rather than screenshotting the one part you thought makes you right.
Note, by the way, that Euler isn’t the only mathematician who contributed to the modern definitions in algebra and arithmetics.
- Comment on A fake Facebook event disguised as a math problem has been one of its top posts for 6 months 2 weeks ago:
Yes, it is. The division of a by b in the set of real numbers and the set of rational numbers (which are, de facto, the default sets used in most professions) is defined as the multiplication of a by the multiplicative inverse of b. Alternative definitions are also based on a multiplication.
That’s why divisions are called an auxilliary operation.
- Comment on YSK about the GI Rights Hotline 5 weeks ago:
You underestimate the strength of the 3rd Reich. It was something.
No country on Earth can hold its own if the rest of the world bands against it. If the US go ballistic, they’ll fall.
I’m more scared of whoever is in charge them taking the whole world with them using the big red button.
- Comment on A fake Facebook event disguised as a math problem has been one of its top posts for 6 months 1 month ago:
I’m just confused as to how that is not common knowledge. The country I speak of is France, and we’re not exactly known for our excellent maths education.
- Comment on A fake Facebook event disguised as a math problem has been one of its top posts for 6 months 1 month ago:
No, it should simply be "Parenthesis, exponents, multiplication, addition.
A division is defined as a multiplication, and a substraction is defined as an addition. I am so confused everytime I see people arguing about this, as this is basic real number arithmetics that every kid in my country learns at 12 yo, when movong on from the simplified version you learn in elementary school.
- Comment on Your help needed: PhD research on why people choose to self-host 1 month ago:
I have answered, and had to put “Other” in employment status because I am self employed. An option for self employment would have been useful in my opinion!
- Comment on Social nuke 1 month ago:
Oh yes, I am so threatened. You got me.
- Comment on Social nuke 1 month ago:
Afraid of what? Replying to what point? Your “shower thought” (lmao) is just a messy thought process of which every single step is based on nothing.
Why would we waste energy discussing consequences of events that will never happen?
- Comment on [deleted] 1 month ago:
Not at all. There is many ways to rationalize time, nothing is settled at all. The “settled theory” you talk about would create paradoxes, if time travel is ever made real. And paradoxes don’t work well with reality.
There is actually a fairly common way to rationalize time that is the opposite of what you’re describing: Time is entirely a construct, there is no past, no future, only the present. Take away all of humanity’s memories and the last doesn’t exist at all.
There’s also an understanding of time that says it only goes forward, making time travelling to the past impossible.
- Comment on [deleted] 1 month ago:
It’s not like we actually know how time travel would work. Because, you know, it’s not currently a thing at all.
- Comment on [deleted] 1 month ago:
It still shouldn’t be banned, it should be up for debate when picking a system. Explicitely banning a system is pretty much anti-democratic by nature.
- Comment on [deleted] 1 month ago:
Nothing screams “democracy” like explicitely banning a voting system
- Comment on US | Republicans push for a decadelong ban on states regulating AI 2 months ago:
Depends on their allegiance to the orange king