Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)M

mindbleach

@ mindbleach @sh.itjust.works

Posts
1
Comments
2677
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • It do be like that (...at times)

    Jump

  • Inventing that parasocial relation to a JPEG, at first sight, is nuts. Insisting you didn't experience that rush of wonder when you had no further context is a lie.

    To say it's less interesting, fine, sure, people don't like the robot that draws anything you can describe. But people reach for extremes in a way that goes beyond subjectivity, and beyond irrationality, to the point it's contrarian. Like a teenager tearing posters off their wall and insisting they never liked their favorite band.

    Personally? I've loved some albums that it turns out were made by fascist bigots. They're never getting another cent from me, and I'm less bothered that several of them got shot, but I'm not gonna pretend the music was bad now. If an artist's suffering and misery are what excites you about a painting of a flower, maybe the fact three people died onstage is a bonus.

  • There’s so much stolen data in the world, South Korea will require face scans to buy a SIM

    Jump

  • What you want is awful and how you address it is awful and go fuck yourself.

  • It do be like that (...at times)

    Jump

  • I shouldn't have to convince you of anything - YOU SAID you found this interesting. Then you learned you were impressed by a program, and want to pretend that didn't happen.

    You can't unfuck that chicken.

  • It do be like that (...at times)

    Jump

  • No. You're in denial of sincere emotions you openly acknowledge you felt.

  • It do be like that (...at times)

    Jump

  • You said you found it interesting. You can't make that reaction un-happen. You can only glumly attempt to reclassify it, because this was a machine fantasy, rather than a human one.

    Surely you wouldn't insist it was a disappointment if it was merely photoshopped or rendered. But because it passed through an autoencoder instead of an image editor, well, that's fundamentally different... somehow.

  • It do be like that (...at times)

    Jump

  • It is cool... you're just prejudiced.

    You experienced fascination, but then found it was Wrong, and have to pretend you did not experience that emotional reaction to a visual medium. Like it'd be any fucking different if it was a real place you'd never visit or see depicted again.

  • More on whether useful quantum computing is "imminent"

    Jump

  • I'm really hoping we solve some other problems in NP, because otherwise, this is a long walk just to ruin encryption.

  • 'The Wire' Star James Ransone Dead at 46 After Apparent Suicide

    Jump

  • Ziggy Sobotka, for anyone else who doesn't want to give TMZ clicks. The lead guy was played by Dominic West.

  • Sea Level

    Jump

  • And the sci-fi cliche is to have enormous moons filling the sky, but realistically, ours is comically large. Even planets in our solar system mostly see moons the way we see those planets. You get a dot.

  • People with nothing to hide need not be bothered about surveillance, Supreme Court says

    Jump

  • I think the majority of Lemmy users are American or expect American news to dominate. The thing you're complaining about only happens because of that.

  • I dunno

    Jump

  • We can see the Acrobat window in those scans you found online.

    You think 2(8)2 is 128 if that's simplified from 2(8+0)2... but 256 if it's simplified from 2(8*1)2. In short: no.

    I think you're about fifteen years old. You had an unpleasant teacher who belittled you, and you've identified with the aggressor. Your whole online persona is posturing to always be smarterer than everybody else, even if that means saying Wolfram fucking Alpha is wrong about basic algebra.

    Faced with a contradiction that requires you to insist (8*1) ≠ (8+0), you're going to type laughter and spam emojis as if that inspires any reaction besides pity. The word you should be looking for is, "oops."

  • People with nothing to hide need not be bothered about surveillance, Supreme Court says

    Jump

  • Given that everyone's first assumption is that it's about the US Supreme Court, obviously no. You have to meet people where they are.

    Even for domestic US news, the same shit happens for state versus federal governments. Sometimes on websites that namedrop cities and politicians but don't bother mentioning what fucking state they're in.

  • People with nothing to hide need not be bothered about surveillance, Supreme Court says

    Jump

  • As if misleading headlines are the audience's fault.

  • I dunno

    Jump

  • Who are you talking to?

    All I said was: If 5(4)2 is 516, like this college math textbook shows, then 2(8)2 is 264.

    Every published example will agree this is how it works. None, at any level of education, will agree with your bullshit.

  • AI-authored code contains worse bugs than software crafted by humans

    Jump

  • Yeah, it's worse than expert humans at everything. It still does a half-ass job, basically for free, in short order.

  • I dunno

    Jump

  • who mysteriously owns dozens of Maths textbooks

    PDFs found online. From which you are ignoring counterexamples using a(b+c)n. Fraud.

    Go ahead and tell me how you would explain what 3(x+y) means without referring to Multiplication?

    Your own spammed screenshots say 3 gets multiplied.

    There is no special case. You made it up. 8+0 equals 8 (or sorry, does it just mean 8?) so 2(8+0)2 is the same as 2(8)2. The latter is the next step in simplifying the former. You've admitted simplifying first is valid, when your nose was rubbed in your own found PDFs doing exactly that.

    You don't have an opinion. You make no claim, anymore. All you have left are derision and emojis. You've admitted 2(81)2 means 2(8)(8), and insist that's different from 2(8)2 because... ibid. You cannot explain it even now.

  • AI-authored code contains worse bugs than software crafted by humans

    Jump

  • "Management pushing contradictory narratives as it suits them, while doing nothing to monitor actual work, which they know very little about. Just a priesthood of MBAs chanting catechisms invented out of thin air to justify their laziness."

  • I dunno

    Jump

  • Your bullshit hit max comment depth.

    That would mean 2(8*1)2 is 128

    That’s right,

    So when you said 2(8)2 is 256, you were wrong.

    Otherwise - walk me through how 2(81)2, 2(8+0)2, and 2(8)2 aren't equal, alleged math teacher.

    Tell me how a(b)n gets a different answer when you know the values. Gimme the primo bullshit.

    None of them have said a(b+c)=ax(b+c)

    “3(x+y) means 3*(x+y).”

    means not equals

    "It depends on what the definition of is, is," says someone definitely not trapped in a contradiction.

  • I dunno

    Jump

  • If 5(4)2 is 516 then 2(8)2 is 264.

    I get a free hoagie.