tate
@tate@lemmy.sdf.org
- Comment on OMG HOW DARE THOSE LIBERALS USE THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS AGAINST OUR PRECIOUS TRUMP!!!11!1! RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE 4 days ago:
I’m not your buddy, friend!
- Comment on Pentagon to start using Grok as part of a $200 million contract with Elon Musk's xAI 2 weeks ago:
I identify strongly with the frustration in this sentiment.
But you do realise the US is the foremost nuclear power in the world? Right?
That’s why the world should have done anything and everything possible to keep US from falling into fascist hands. But now it’s too late.
- Comment on Eating would be weird if we didn't enjoy it. 2 weeks ago:
Pretty much every life form on Earth chews food with their face then shoves it down.
The vast majority of life forms on Earth have neither a mouth nor a face.
- Comment on Is my shampoo smelling like fruit or is my fruit tasting like shampoo? 2 weeks ago:
This is the easiest chicken or egg riddle ever.
- Comment on The sole purpose of language models is to lower the market value of human skills. 2 weeks ago:
I hope you’re right.
- Comment on McDonald’s AI Hiring Bot Exposed Millions of Applicants’ Data to Hackers Who Tried the Password ‘123456’ 2 weeks ago:
ETA = Edit to add
Just trying to explain why my comment changed, in case anyone saw it before that LOL.
- Comment on McDonald’s AI Hiring Bot Exposed Millions of Applicants’ Data to Hackers Who Tried the Password ‘123456’ 2 weeks ago:
McDonalds gets millions of applications? wtf?
- Comment on billionaires are a cancer on society [literally] 2 weeks ago:
You are refuting an argument that I did not make.
I enjoy this type of debate, but this one doesn’t seem to be getting anywhere. I’m moving on. Thank you, sincerely.
- Comment on billionaires are a cancer on society [literally] 2 weeks ago:
Sorry for the multiple replies btw. My app is acting weird.
- Comment on billionaires are a cancer on society [literally] 2 weeks ago:
“Billionaires are literally cancer” is false specifically because “literally” does not mean “figuratively”.
Correct. But that is not what OP said. Read it again and I think you will see that OP is saying that “Billionaires are cancer” is not a figurative statement at all, but a literal one. You can disagree with them (I do, btw), but they have not misused the word “literally.”
- Comment on billionaires are a cancer on society [literally] 2 weeks ago:
“Billionaires are literally cancer” is simply a false statement, unless “literally” was used, incorrectly, as hyperbole.
That is my point. Literally can be used correctly in a statement that is not correct, and my reading of the original post is that was OP’s intention. They did not misuse the word “literally.”
I’m not debating the meaning of the word cancer.
- Comment on billionaires are a cancer on society [literally] 3 weeks ago:
You are refuting an argument that I did not make.
- Comment on billionaires are a cancer on society [literally] 3 weeks ago:
Then you do not understand what the word “literally” literally means.
Oooo, sick burn!! I don’t know if I’ll recover from that!
My point is that I believe OP was using the word “literally” to mean what it literally means, and not just using it for emphasis as it is so often used these days. They may still be wrong, bit they did not misuse the word.
- Comment on billionaires are a cancer on society [literally] 3 weeks ago:
I think OP used literally correctly here. They are saying that one possible definition of the word cancer can include billionaires as an instance. That’s not the definition you’ll find in any dictionary, but those lag behind the true language as it evolves.
- Comment on billionaires are a cancer on society [literally] 3 weeks ago:
People think they understand numbers like billion because they understand thousand and billion is just thousand times thousand (million) times thousand. Multiplication is fairly intuitive, but exponentiation is not. Without explicitly thinking it through people feel like 1000^3 is not very different from 1000 * 3.
- Comment on xkcd #3107: Weather Balloons 4 weeks ago:
It looks like the dart took out about a half dozen lights and a dozen people in about two seconds, so let’s say 10 strikes per second. At that rate it would take 10^11 seconds to pop a trillion balloons. That’s more than 3000 years!
Of course I did say “make a tiny dent,” but even to eliminate 0.1% of the balloons would take the dart 3 years. One trillion is a number that we use a lot, for example talking about the US national debt, but it is not an ordinary number that lends itself to intuitive understanding. Even a billion is hard to grasp intuitively.
- Comment on xkcd #3107: Weather Balloons 4 weeks ago:
All the fighter jets in the world couldn’t make a tiny dent in one trillion balloons.
- Comment on Chicken TACO 1 month ago:
I like tacos in general, all kinds. But this is really getting under Trump’s skin, so more power to 'em!
- Comment on The youtube algorithm is so bad, I say to my screen "why the fuck would I care about this!?" like 10 times a day. 2 months ago:
*The former
- Comment on British soldiers tune radio waves to fry drone swarms for pennies 3 months ago:
take the L and walk away.
I’m here having reasoned conversations with thoughtful people. I left the karma farming behind on reddit, and I don’t miss it. I can’t lose.
The word see predates the concepts of neurons, chemicals, and photons by thousands of years. We see objects, not light.
- Comment on British soldiers tune radio waves to fry drone swarms for pennies 3 months ago:
The word “see” predates any concept of rods or cones or photons by thousands of years. It has nothing to do with those things.
- Comment on British soldiers tune radio waves to fry drone swarms for pennies 3 months ago:
That’s not what the word “see” means. You’re trying to to swap it for another word like “sense.” You see objects, not light.
- Comment on British soldiers tune radio waves to fry drone swarms for pennies 3 months ago:
The light that enters your eye carries enormous amounts of information with it. Your eye and a small portion of your brain comprise a highly specific tool for extracting a small subset of that information and processing it. The information you use is only related to the last object the light interacted with, not the light itself (with the small exception being the “brightness” - that has nothing to do with the object).
No one claims to hear the air in their ears rather than the violin that is being played nearby. That’s just not what the word “hear” means.
- Comment on British soldiers tune radio waves to fry drone swarms for pennies 3 months ago:
That’s not what the word “see” means.
- Comment on British soldiers tune radio waves to fry drone swarms for pennies 3 months ago:
Look around the space you’re in and notice that you can’t “see” the light, only the things.
- Comment on The plural of Kleenex should be Kleenices. 3 months ago:
Kleenpodes!
Yes, I know its unrelated. I’m just trying to force in the whole octopi problem.
- Comment on Lemmy has the ideal number of posts for me. Just enough to have a good time but not too many that I'm scrolling forever 3 months ago:
You don’t have enough subs. Slacker.
/s
- Comment on Is it better to leave a country, or stay behind to fight for it? And what about the ethics of fleeing instead of staying behind? 4 months ago:
I’m just so grateful that so many great scientists fled nazi germany. Also that those who stayed behind (this is controversial and not known for sure) hindered and delayed Germany’s nuclear weapons program.
- Comment on Mail-in-a-Box - simple email server 5 months ago:
Sure enough! Thanks, that was fun to watch again.
- Comment on Mail-in-a-Box - simple email server 5 months ago:
Isn’t that step two?
I feel like step one was “get a box,” but I could be misremembering.