fedaykin reepicheep

Calling myself a dumbass: humble, self-effacing, almost Socratic Calling someone else a dumbass: devastating critique, owned forever, brain mogged

GOOD POINT x.com/i/status/20348…

I put the Declaration of Independence through the LinkedIn slop generator. Incredible.

Can’t believe the Butlerian Jihad will start from regular-style jihad. Frank Herbert really did so much LSD it let him peer into the future.

Sol is a great name for the 13th month but I think we should stick it at the beginning and number it 0

US messageboard 4Chan mocks £520,000 fine for UK online safety breaches bbc.in/4lyLyNK

@BackOutsideGrl that’s right

Mr Exclusive Club over here watch out everyone

Every American needs to reply with Sir Nigel

We've fined 4chan £450,000 for not having age checks in place to prevent children seeing porn on its site. The Online Safety Act is concerned with protecting people in the UK. It doesn't require platforms to restrict what people in other countries see. 🔗ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/…

They should cast Robert Pattinson, doing his silliest voice yet, as the malfunctioning O-ring

The only books that anyone on X has read is Blood Meridian, Starship Troopers, Dune and Lord of the Rings. And the latter three, people just watched the movies.

@JessicaLBurbank We are

why is the right wing not celebrating the victory of free speech leader and musical artist Afroman

Twitter is second nature to us terminally online, so it's easy to forget that the average normie probably only knows the tweets for Dril and one or two Lindymans. And Landshark, of course. Of course.

You're laughing? A cop testified under oath that he does not know if Afroman fucked his wife, and you're laughing?

@DukeLeto_ii your mom

@mauddweeb Stay in the basement

the worst thing that ever happened to dune was becoming something the normies know about most people should not know the words lisan al gaib or kwisatz haderach

The Afroman Trial. -Cops raid Afromans house for bullshit reasons. -Steal money, break his door, fuck his house up. -No criminality found whatsoever, no charges at all pressed on Afroman. -Afroman spends the next 3 years making songs that make fun of all the officers involved by name, even using footage of the raid from his own CCTV cameras. -Songs had titles like "Randy Walters is a son of a bitch" and "Lick Em Low Lisa" accusing one of the officers of being a lesbian and sleeping with the other officers wives. -During the raid one officer looked like he was about to eat some lemon pound cake sitting on Afromans counter, Afroman made a whole album calling the officer fat. -The cops get mad and file a lawsuit for defamation. -Afroman turns up to court in a whole American flag suit. -Officers performatively mald and cry while listening to the songs really trying to oversell how badly the songs upset them. -One officer was suing because Afroman made a whole song about him saying he was fucking the officers wife. When the officer was asked if Afroman was really fucking his wife, he said "I don't know". Nuking his own case and establishing that there is a non-zero chance that Afroman might actually be fucking his wife. -As his only witness for the trial, Afroman brought a deputies EX FUCKING WIFE. -The jury ruled completely in favour of Afroman. This entire thing has been a great win for free speech and absolutely fucking hilarious.

@lonelocust1987 @cuddlyklaus @FibroFogFig oh so manipulating the appearances and beliefs of an entire culture to your own ends doesn’t count then, eh?

This film is just plain appropriation and daylight robbery of West Asian and North African people's language and culture atp considering the cast. If you didn't know who this white lady is, you'd think it's just a photo of an indigenous Algerian woman.

@mauddweeb Gatekeeping kept men from becoming bene gesserits until paul was born and look where that got them!

The reviews are in

Math-brain Two foundational concepts in math are the quantifiers “for every” and “there exists” Example: “for every real number x, there exists a real number y such that x+y=0” The outer quantifier “for every” means the statement applies to all real numbers without exception. The inner quantifier “there exists” means that, given your choice of x, there is at least one y which satisfies the statement. “For every” statements can be disproven by a single counterexample. For example, the statement “for every prime number x, x is odd” is disproven by the fact that *there exists* the prime number 2. The fact that this is the only counterexample out of an infinite set of primes doesn’t matter. The universal claim is as false as it would be if every single prime were even. not “for every” = “there exists” not These are part of the basic language of set theory. And many academics who aren’t mathematicians also learn them in a logic class. But they’re a very poor grammar for thinking about the external world. In physical and social reality, hardly any concepts are utterly precise the way they are in math. They are not defined by logical propositions, but rather by vague clouds of data points. “Chair” is the most common example. There is no airtight, exception-free definition of a chair. Give any definition you want, and I’ll find something commonly called a chair that doesn’t satisfy it, or something not commonly called a chair that does. This is illustrated in a (possibly apocryphal) episode between Plato and Diogenes. Plato was asked for a definition of Man and said “featherless biped”. Diogenes runs in holding a plucked chicken and says “behold, a man!” Less humorously, math-brain is responsible for some of the dumbest arguments in politics. Consider the trans advocates who challenge any definition of sex by pointing out some 0.000001% prevalence disorder that they don’t even have. Or the people who respond to generalizations with anecdotal exceptions. Or the people who think the solution to illegal immigration is to just legalize them all. Boom! For every immigrant, that immigrant is now legal. Solved. That was your problem right? The technical legality? The basic issue is acting as if discrete language could ever carve continuous reality* perfectly, and selectively using its failure to do so to bog down conversations when *we all know what we mean*. No one consistently does this across the board, because it would render all thinking impossible. Rather, it is a rhetorical tool for derailing substantive debate. Don’t humor it. Don’t engage with it. Don’t get lost in the weeds. All practical categories are approximate, none are exact. If someone pretends they don’t know what you mean based on some math-brained hair splitting when they clearly do know what you mean, write them off as a liar. *this is not a claim about the nature of fundamental physics **despite calling this concept math-brain, I don’t think mathematicians are especially prone to it. Less so, if anything.

@tkisrage There should be one appeal, for the third kind of cases, to the state Supreme Court. They are allowed to rule either: "Judge be trippin' balls" - impeachment proceedings start on the judge and the accused gets to sleep over at the lead justice's house Or "Naw, he did that"