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
Strictly confined Kubernetes makes edge and IoT secure.
strictly confine my Kubernetes till I edge 🥵
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
This is a very good article, with truth that needs to be broadcasted, and image that are so excellent. My preferred one is :
if you’ve just been picking up software you found lying around the place, [...] what you actually have is a parasocial relationship with free software
And some others:
There is no supply chain here because there is no supplier. Someone created the software artifact once upon a time, yes, but it was not supplied to you. It was made available to the world at large. You happened across this software that already existed and decided to use it, of your own free will.
And also:
Take your time and enjoy your hobby more, since that is what unpaid software maintenance is. Collaborate with other people only so much as it brings you joy.
And I think I will end up quoting the whole article, so just go read it, thank you so much @daedalus !
https://pivotnine.com/blog/open-source-has-too-many-parasocial-relationships/
this entire pattern needs to die. I feel like the main culprits are:
Hopefully the android clipboard didn't break itself this time
The Asylum Lab at the University of Toronto Scarborough has created a resource guide for LGBTQIA+ individuals interested in seeking asylum in Canada. It includes links & a nice summary of other possible ways to enter Canada as well.
I came across this post by @Jo , that captured a feeling I’ve had for a long time:
“Fun internet Theory” states that there are still a lot of cool and interesting things to do online.
This is a reference to the Dead Internet Theory, which states that the internet is invaded with bots and algorithmic slop.
(The theory has way more strange and absurd ramifications if you dig far enough. They are not worth your time, so this is the basic understanding most people have when they hear the term.)
I love how positive this definition of the Fun Internet Theory is. It’s an optimism that is more realistic than you might think.
You see, I refuse to think of the internet as what is being served by algorithms and mainstream social media. It’s as absurd as looking at the top grossing films every year and being like “Man, all movies are the same these days”.
The old internet, or at least the part we cherish, did not disappear. It wasn’t replaced by bots; we got our attention stolen from it.
We’ve deluded ourselves into thinking that social media (and thus the web) is all there is to see. That you must keep up with international news and the discourse of the day. You must hold an opinion and defend it, or at least find people that confirm your biases.
I refuse to think that the internet is only this.
The other thing I love about Fun Internet Theory is that it states that there are a lot of cool things to do on the web.
The internet is a much sadder place when all you do is consume passively whatever is delivered to you this day. Instead, being active should be at the forefront. But being active doesn’t mean you need to run your own website! It starts with you being more involved in what you see and how you interact with it.
This is not only gonna bring you to interesting places, interesting people (like you!), but it’s also way more satisfying! Even if from the outside view you are missing out on the daily noise.
So go, explore the weirder parts of the web! Weird wiki on a specific topic, obscure game on itch.io, small musician on Soundcloud, or random people’s blog.
But even better, be a part of it!
Comment on someone’s post, share a montage of your favorite game screenshot, seed a torrent, make a meme! Or make friends and help people in a small Discord server!
Do cool things on the internet, because there are and always will be a lot of cool and interesting things to do :)
one thing that really trips me up about Lisp syntax is dealing with comparison operators like >
and <
. for arithmetic operators I can kinda deal with them by thinking about them like this:
(+ 1 variable) ; this plus-ones the variable
as opposed to this:
(+ variable 1) ; this applies plus to the variable and one (much harder to think about)
but with comparison operators:
(< 1 variable)
;; hmm okay so (< 1 variable) means (variable < 1) right? or wait no it's (1 < variable), isn't it? it doesn't less-than-one the variable, it greater-than-ones the variable... I think?
super confusing. I keep vacillating between “Lisp’s syntax is actually genius” and “macros are cool and the syntax is simple but nothing is worth the tradeoff of how hard this is to read and write”
can I get a Vixen’s Scream from all my femboy foxes?