Abcight

@SAINT_SBASE This is an anagram for nastie stain

The official name of the group has been revealed: SAINT SATINE

@OrevaZSN There's a red button and a blue button. If you press red, you guarantee your name remains private if the meeting ends. If at least 50% of participants press blue, everyone's name remains private. If at least 50% of people press either button, the meeting ends abruptly.

Idea: An anonymous “vote to end meeting” button on Teams where if 50% of people press it, the meeting ends immediately.

@filpizlo Yeah, but it's also slower and comes with a runtime cost, so what's the point? For non-performance critical legacy architecture, maybe. Software used to be efficient, now it's not. I don't need the ever-present browser to incur additional cost on top, it's already terrible.

Rust may be safer than Zig. But Fil-C is safer than Rust. (Posted from a memory safe browser - WebKit compiled with Fil-C on an OS compiled with Fil-C.)

@Strange2048 @jarredsumner ...HOWEVER manual memory management makes it easier to leak by accident. In Rust, you'd rarely find yourself in a situation where you need to leak. But if you need it, it's explicit. The gains from switching to Rust are two fold; one is memory safety, other is easier management.

@Strange2048 @jarredsumner Memory leaks aren't inherently memory unsafe, as they don't violate memory access rules. They don't introduce UB, the worst that could happen is an OOM, and OOMs can be triggered even by correct code. They can be a problem, but it's an entirely different class of problems.

99.8% of bun’s pre-existing test suite passes on Linux x64 glibc in the rust rewrite

@r0brtaholic @Jtaylor0_3 Last week we saw him knocked out from a random supe's breath stank can we stop pretending he's untouchable 😭

@Jtaylor0_3 Oh but you’d rather them make an ending where the good guys somehow beat homelander ? Do you not see how fucking retarded that ending would be? Homelander is literally too goddamn powerful, for anyone to be able to take him down would be an absolute joke to watch

I’m not gonna lie to you I’m open to a lot of swings narratively and all that but if this show ends with him winning or having any kind of success it will immediately make me retroactively think this entire show is abysmal dogshit of the lowest tier

How do these connect? I opened the article and it's just separate charges. What does the surrogacy have to do with it?

art and subculture dies in mainstream, we don't want to normalize it, we like it because it's alternative and your dislike of it is part of the appeal, so thanks 🥰

@ValDelamere The goal is to employ F such that the result is the million dollar box, always. Monte-Carlo simulations of this dilemma prove this model of reasoning tracks well with reality and makes Box B pickers the winners, so long as the predictor is at least ~50% accurate.

@ValDelamere When you decide, you run some choice algorithm F. If the predictor runs its approximated F early, then you're not really "influencing the past" with your decision. You're just running the same calculation later to independently reconstruct the same result. Take box B.

am i missing something or is the answer really easy? since the predictor is guaranted to be correct just take box B since it would've predicted that you did that lol?

I don't think it's fair to reduce the red vote to shallow moral thinking. It all depends on the assumptions that a person makes and how they view the society. If someone truly believes that there is absolutely no way for blue to win, if someone is certain that blue is only going to have ~1% of the votes, then for that person, pressing blue is tantamount to suicide. Likewise, if someone is absolutely sure that blue will win by a landslide, there isn't really much perceived risk for pressing the blue button. So you can get vastly different results before moral considerations even come into play. You can observe these differences by changing the threshold--many people who would've voted blue suddenly lose their ground when it's eg. 90% for blue to win instead of 50%. The details may vary, but the risk assessment bit is real regardless of which side you lean towards. Any moral argument made by the blue side can be flipped on its head too. Blue voters ask "What about your friends and family who voted blue? What about the impaired who pressed blue? Are you willing to save yourself and let them go?" and what about the close relatives who voted red? If you vote blue and fail, your children who voted red now don't have a parent. Your elderly relatives who voted red have nobody to care for them. Do you think they deserved this just because they wanted to live? And more importantly, do you think red voters are "immoral" if they made their choice with these considerations in mind? A common blue-voter argument is "I don't want to live in a world full of red voters anyway." So you don't want to help fix it? One could argue you're just taking the easy way out, that you don't want to help rebuild society and that you're fine abandoning the people who voted red. That your empathy is conditional, because you only care about the like-minded blue people. If you believe that red voters are all immoral psychopaths, then it's only fair to accept these criticisms towards blue voters. I don't think that either side is clear-cut better or worse, it's only ever shallow if you make it so by ignoring the points raised by the other camp. What I'm getting at is, one can opt for red out of consideration for others just as well as the blue voters do. If you're trying to assess a given person, the decision itself doesn't matter nearly as much as the reasoning behind it. At best, it encodes preference under uncertainty for red voters, and that's it. It's not a "moral test", it's a conversation starter. As with any thought experiment, the point isn't to get an answer. The point is to have people share their perspectives. Saying someone "failed a moral test" because they chose red is shallow thinking that doesn't contribute to anything, in fact, it's a tribalist claim that further divides people. Putting all of this together, I think there are three components to this equation: empirical belief (what will others do?), risk tolerance (what risk am I willing to accept?) and moral values (what philosophical angle do I employ?). That third one is its own can of worms, because like I explained, one can still choose red out of conviction, the desire to support the survivors, to work hard restoring humanity. But even if you have a strong moral belief in collective outcomes, your empirical belief of "literally nobody will vote blue and I'll die" is enough to sway you the other way. The final choice is a product of all these considerations.

Everyone in the world has to take a private vote by pressing a red or blue button. If more than 50% of people press the blue button, everyone survives. If less than 50% of people press the blue button, only people who pressed the red button survive. Which button would you press?

Don't tell them about RPN...

@stageclownery I don't know about Spencer tbh... To me, it reads as "If I can't be God then nobody can". Would he have those same regrets if his original plans came through? I don't think so.

#re9 spoilers holy shit the truth behind Grace was insane. Eplis being Spencer’s one good choice in his regretful lament. I think it’s poetic almost final chapter to Spencer’s legacy. Grace being normal, not experimented at all, just adds so much to her story.

@FluffyWuffy_ zupa przesolona bezużyteczna kurwo chcesz po łbie dostać??

EXTRA POINTS if you speak to me in polish while cooking.

@GLabsPlus @rinickzhou @Math_files @GenshinTrad I suppose I should add that there's no clear evidence the meridian definition was chosen to match the pendulum proposal, though the similarity was known. Borda, for example, was aware of it but opposed the pendulum definition anyway. It was likely in the discussion's background.

@GLabsPlus @rinickzhou @Math_files Not just coincidence, there's history. As @GenshinTrad noted in satire, if you define 1m as a seconds pendulum, then from T=2*pi*sqrt{L/g} with T=2 you get g=pi^2. Not dimensionless, but funny. This was proposed before France adopted the meridian (equator-to-pole) definition.

π² is approximately equal to Earth’s gravitational acceleration, 9.807 m/s².

they did more for awareness of violence against trans people and queerness in general than they realized

@PicturesFoIder I'll fix it

Why is gen Z not drinking?

@KeslerRosa36026 @MadamSavvy Okay, we're making stuff up now, I see.

@Abcight @MadamSavvy >In English you'd say "Heh" I know you're retarded ( you have to be to defend localizers) but heh and ehe sounds the same

I HATE AMERICAN LOCALIZATION AND VOICE ACTING SO MUCH WHY DO YOU FREAKS DO THIS. WHY DO YOU INSIST ON BUTCHERING AUTHOR INTENT? A SIMPLE EHE CANT EVEN BE DONE? CAN YOU NOT ACT? CAN YOU NOT PRETEND FOR 30 FUCKING SECONDS YOU ARENT THE CENTER OF THE GOD DAMN UNIVERSE AND THAT YOU ARE MERELY A COG IN A WHEEL, NOT A CREATIVE INSPIRATION TO THE REST OF THE WORLD? THE AUTHOR WANTED EHE. WHY IS THIS HARD TO RESPECT? ARE YOU SO SELFISH, SO PATHETHIC, SO AFRAID OF OTHER CULTURES AND SOUNDS AND CUSTOMS AND SPEECH PATTERNS? ACTOR. IT IS IN YOUR FUCKING JOB TITLE. ACT. PRETEND. HOLY FUCK. IT ISNT FUCKING HARD TO DO AN E FUCKING HE.

@KeslerRosa36026 @MadamSavvy Where did I say that?

@Abcight @MadamSavvy You literally said it. They could have go with "ehe" but decided not to.