stingpie

@[email protected]

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

stingpie,

Tolkien was primarily a linguist, so the languages he made were actually based on real languages. Tolkien elvish is based on Finnish.

stingpie,

The browser we deserve.

stingpie,

A d12 is superior to every other dice shape. Not only is it highly composite, but it also is less likely to roll of the side of a table and feels better in the hand.

stingpie,

I will continue to say LITRALLY everytime somebody uses literally as figuratively.

stingpie,

What environment is this? I like how it looks.

stingpie,

I’m assuming English isn’t your first language, but “IPoAC would’ve it’s purpose” is grammatically awkward. “Would’ve” doesn’t really work for possession. Instead you can use “would have,” but people would typically say “IPoAC has it’s purpose”

stingpie,

The word “have” is used in two different ways. One way is to own or hold something, so if I’m holding a pencil, I have it. But another way is as a way so signal different tenses (as in grammatical tense) so you can say “I shouldn’t have done it” or “they have tried it before.” The contraction “'ve” is only used for tense, but not to own something. So, the phrase “they’ve it” is grammatically incorrect.

stingpie,

Whom is this directed to?

stingpie,

You’re right. Troi’s and Data’s hands are messed up, Data has unreal wrinkles on his forehead, the shadow on Picard’s neck seems to be a dent, and of course, Troi’s nose has a different camera angle on either side.

stingpie,

Ah yes, rust. The language that somehow manages to manages to as verbose as possible, with as much jargonized shorthand that a computer could handle.

stingpie,

What AI did you use to generate this?

stingpie,

Did you guys find this hard? There are only four possible ways to move a ring, two of which are disallowed by the rules. Out of the remaining two, one of them is simply undoing what you just did.

stingpie,

Here’s another way of framing it: qualia, by definition, is not measurable by any instrument, but qualia must exist in some capacity in order for us to experience it. So, me must assume that either we cannot experience qualia, or that qualia exists in a way we do not fully understand yet. Since the former is generally rejected, the latter must be true.

You may argue that neurochemical signals are the physical manefestation of qualia, but making that assumption throws us into a trap. If qualia is neurochemical signals, which signals are they? By what definition can we precisely determine what is qualia and what is not? Are unconscious senses qualia? If we stimulated a random part of the brain, unrelated to the sensory cortex, would that create qualia? If the distribution of neurochemicals can be predicted, and the activations of neurons was deterministic as well, would calculating every stimulation in the brain be the same as consciousness?

In both arguments, consciousness is no clearer or blurrier, so which one is correct?

stingpie,

I’m not sure I entirely understand your argument. “We decide it exists, therefore it exists” is the basis of all science and mathematics. We form axioms based on what we observe, then extrapolate from those axioms to form a coherent logical system. While it may be a leap of logic to assume others have consciousness, it’s a common decency to do that.

Onto the second argument, when I mean “what signal is qualia” I’m talking about what is the minimum number of neurons we could kill to completely remove someone’s experience of qualia. If we could sever the brain stem, but that would kill an excess of cells. We could kill the sensory cortex, but that would kill more cells than necessary. We could sever the connection between the sensory cortex and the rest of the brain, etc. As you minimize the number of cells, you move up the hierarchy, and eventually reach the prefrontal cortex. But once you reach the prefrontal cortex, the neurons that deliver qualia and the neurons that register it can’t really be separated.

Lastly, you said that assuming consciousness is some unique part of the universe is wrong because it cannot be demonstrably proven to exist. I can’t really argue against this, since it seems to relate to the difference in our experience of consciousness. To me, consciousness feels palpable, and everything else feels as thin as tissue paper.

stingpie,

All of science is based on the assumption that what is observed and experienced exists. You cannot gather data without at some point experiencing some representation of that data. In this sense, qualia is the most real thing possible, because experience is the essence of evidence.

stingpie,

Okay, but what is sparc and pa-risc?

stingpie,

Here I thought this was an IT crowd reference.

stingpie,

It’s less about the fallibility of humans, and more mathematical than that. A person ability to acquire wealth is proportional to the current wealth they have. (And I’m not just talking about money, I’m taking about resources and power) As a result, those with a tendency to act nastier have an advantage in gaining wealth. This same issue is present in a communist economy, because while communism eschues the concept of money, it does not reject the idea of unequal power. Even some super intelligent AI wouldn’t be able to fix this, as long as it was forced to give humanity basic freedoms and follow communist ideals.

Honestly, this whole communism vs capitalism debate is beneficial to the powers that be, since neither system actually tries to prevent the acquisition of power or the abuse of it.

stingpie,

Sorry, I should’ve been more thorough. I meant it functionally ignores the concept of unequal power. Any sufficiently large group effort will eventually build a power structure, regardless of whether it’s capitalist or communist.

stingpie,

I believe the elderly man is biden.

stingpie,

Please, what is the established theory to create an n-1 dimensional space filling curve on the surface of an n-sphere?! I need to speed up my locality sensitive neural hash!

stingpie,

If you ever find anything, please tell me. I have a lot of arguments, but nobody to argue with.

stingpie,

I’m gonna start using this joke.

stingpie,

This is definitely real and not propaganda because the Chinese economy is in a huge downturn.

stingpie,

My big issue with socialism is more about the implementation. I’m not sure there is a way of enforcing socialism that isn’t antithetical to the goal of socialism- a more even distribution of power (which we quantify as wealth in a capitalist society).

In general, I don’t think there are any stable economic systems that don’t decay into feudalism when abused. At least for the economic systems we’ve come up with so far. The best one I know of is the gift economy, but that requires people to not expect something in return, because otherwise it could be reduced down to capitalism.

In short, all the economic systems so far, despite their best intentions, reinforce inequality.

stingpie,

I’m glad you’re out there. I just get really frustrated when I see people making sweeping assertions about Christianity without really knowing anything about theology.

stingpie,

Calling religion the biggest scourge on humanity is a huge exageratrion. I’d probably say slavery is significantly worse, and human trafficking shows no signs of stopping. Capitalism is also clearly worse, and it’s the most impactful force today. A large reason religion, and specifically Christianity, has gotten worse in recent years is because of the influence of capitalism.

stingpie,

goes on an anti-tankie post Comments that his posts are always dogpilled by the most anti-tankie group. Claims ad hominem when someone points it out.

:)

stingpie,

1 yard is about a meter. 3 feet in a yard. Just divide by 3 and that’s good enough for 99% of cases.

stingpie,

OG Content Posted on Lemmy!

stingpie,

It’s crazy how much people will vehemently defend a position with little to no knowledge of the subject. It’s easy to just pin it on the dunning-kruger effect, but in this case I think it’s definitely tied to how much people despise economists. Which I find kinda funny since it’s like getting angry at the weatherman for bad weather.

Also, are there any communities dedicated to actually discussing economics? I’d really like to spitball actual solutions to a shitty economy rather than the wishful thinking capitalists & communists rely on.

stingpie,

How is the concept of democracy a scam?

stingpie,

Non-historian detected

stingpie,

Instead of a golden calf, it’s a bronze bull.

stingpie,

Probably Ultima ratio regum, found it on tig source, I have no idea how to actually play it, but it’s got big ambitions and is already pretty impressive. forums.tigsource.com/index.php?topic=22176.0

stingpie,

I disagree with that view, mostly because I don’t think that free will means completely random. Imagine the goldbach conjecture, there are two simple rules, divide by two if even, multiply by three and add 1 if odd. If you take any number, it is impossible to determine when that number will enter a loop, unless you go through the whole process. The brain is like that, but a trillion times more complicated. Is the brain deterministic? Yes. But does that mean you can determine what choice someone will make? No.

stingpie,

The big issue I have with brain chips is longevity. How long until the electrodes degrade? When will the chips fail? Once they fail, will it be fail safe or fail deadly? Also, what will be the power source? Will it use inductive power, or battery power? They are both awful options. What if the chip overheats? The implementation is the real question here, but neuralink refuse to give any answers because it proprietary.

stingpie,

I like to program assembly. It’s kinda fun to juggle around registers, and it feels really gratifying to to see it running at the fastest speed possible.

stingpie,

Do you know of a community to discuss this? I feel like people stop criticizing economic systems once they benefit from it, and so people just default to communism or capitalism without actually considering the game theory behind it all.

stingpie,

I hate being lumped in with all the zoomers in gen z. To me, gen Z is really two generations, gen Z is 1997-2006 and zoomers are 2006-2015. There’s just a huge cultural gap, at least in my experience. I’ll talk about how all my school computers used windows XP, and zoomers will just stare at me like I’m ancient or something.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • uselessserver093
  • Food
  • aaaaaaacccccccce
  • test
  • CafeMeta
  • testmag
  • MUD
  • RhythmGameZone
  • RSS
  • dabs
  • KamenRider
  • TheResearchGuardian
  • KbinCafe
  • Socialism
  • oklahoma
  • SuperSentai
  • feritale
  • All magazines
    •