if math could be explained in a way that everyone can understand it would be called physics
math is actually a scam. nobody knows what an integrand or an antiderivative is - they’re all just pretending in order to seem smart. all those Wikipedia pages? pure technobabble. all that weird squiggly notation? no rhyme or reason at all
that’s why all math technobabble is exclusively explained in terms of more math technobabble. there are no plain English axioms that everyone can understand - it’s technobabble all the way down
JRPG fans love increasing numbers so much that Squenix named all of the Final Fantasy games after increasing numbers
“kas wtf are you talking about”
I have no idea it’s just in my WSL login message for some reason
Strictly confined Kubernetes makes edge and IoT secure.
strictly confine my Kubernetes till I edge 🥵
“hm which Resident Evil was the Texas Chainsaw Massacre one? was it 6? no that was the bad one, wasn’t it? or was that 5? I think 7 was Village, right? or was that 8?”
this is not a good problem for an $11 billion USD franchise to have
I know most AAA or AA games end up named something like Fallen Lords: Banner of Shadow or Delta Elite: Zero Hour but I do prefer that to just assigning your games serial numbers and calling it a day
watch out next year for:
i hate infinite scrolling. it has all the problems of pagination, but also extra ones like it’s fucking impossible to find what im looking for if its more than a month old
thank you Metal Gear Solid Delta and Silent Hill Lowercase F for showing us that video games can be named after alphabet letters instead of numbers or word salad subtitles
some phrases have a lot of power over some folks, especially given the company i keep. i have to be very careful about saying the words "good girl" or- ...oh no
I hate how in movies and TV, whenever there’s an ideological disagreement it mostly just boils down to both characters playing social power games at each other like allists, without either one making an actually interesting point. I miss the Star Trek approach of giving both sides good, convincing, interesting points and letting the debate play out for a while
I was watching a movie called Ghostwatch recently (which is interesting! it’s kinda like found footage horror but predates Blair Witch) and they had a scientist vs. a ghost believer
and the scientist didn’t bother to explain how all of the evidence could have been faked (which was really obvious). he was just like “well it’s not under laboratory conditions and also you are stupid and dumb and dumby stupid face”. and then the ghost believer was like “well actually you are dumbier stupidier face and also you can’t measure love in a laboratory and you are dumb dumb stupid dumb”
which like, this could have been a really interesting debate about epistemology and what can or can’t be used to justify belief? because obviously the ghost believer thinks that there are other methods for determining truth beyond scientific empiricism and I would love to hear more about that, and then hear the scientist try to argue against it. that would be so much fucking cooler than just two allists playing social status games at each other for three minutes