CanadaPlus

joined 2 years ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

These negative reviews make me really want to watch it. Most TV glosses over all uncomfortable truths.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I mean, this is Lemmy, it's a show about making fun of us.

And honestly I'd respect that if they put effort into it, but "lol nerd" is like 90% of the plot.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

I fully don't get why people like that. It looks mean and dull and it's not even reality. The sexy ones also look like a shit stand-in for actual porn.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

How do you lose a family doctor? Like, they quit?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

I mean, in most of the cases on the map it's actually brown people afraid of other brown people. America invented racism, or at least the main kind of racism, but being a bigot in other ways is ancient and ubiquitous.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

There's hope for China. The US might artificially prop up fossil fuels even once uneconomical at this point.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

I'm not actually sure there's been a time and place where all three of these coexisted, and named ideologies can mean pretty massively different things depending on context.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 hours ago

I mean, did Starlink allow it? They got caught.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Because it’s their money……

So? There's lots of restrictions on what you can do with your money. Most people agree this is a good thing.

It has also already been taxed.

Kind of the same answer. You can legislate whatever you want, including tax number n+1 in addition to the n you paid while alive.

Are you against having a government at all? Do you believe in a certain natural right that would restrict inheritance tax specifically? You came in here with a bombshell take and it feels incomplete without some context, haha.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

I was literally in the ER on Tuesday.

You must be in one of the provinces that are on the privatisation slippery slope. Alberta isn't really yet.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

It's pretty impossible not to be tangentially connected with someone bad somewhere. Unless I have reasonable grounds to think the production of something was directly unethical I can't and don't worry about it.

For example, if you buy a thing from a poor country, there's a chance a slave made it, but a greater chance it was part of somebody's ticket out of rural poverty, and there's no way to tell. On the other hand, meat is always meat (unless it's lab-grown I guess, but that technology doesn't work very well to date).

[–] [email protected] 3 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago)

Would a casually non-Japanese character even fly over there? My sense is that they still exoticise everyone else.

 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/37414239

I've read the old papers proving that fact, but honestly it seems like some of the terminology and notation has changed since the 70's, and I roundly can't make heads or tails of it. The other sources I can find are in textbooks that I don't own.

Ideally, what I'm hoping for is a segment of pseudocode or some modern language that generates an n-character string from some kind of seed, which then cannot be recognised in linear time.

It's of interest to me just because, coming from other areas of math where inverting a bijective function is routine, it's highly unintuitive that you provably can't sometimes in complexity theory.

 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/37414239

I've read the old papers proving that fact, but honestly it seems like some of the terminology and notation has changed since the 70's, and I roundly can't make heads or tails of it. The other sources I can find are in textbooks that I don't own.

Ideally, what I'm hoping for is a segment of pseudocode or some modern language that generates an n-character string from some kind of seed, which then cannot be recognised in linear time.

It's of interest to me just because, coming from other areas of math where inverting a bijective function is routine, it's highly unintuitive that you provably can't sometimes in complexity theory.

 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/37414239

I've read the old papers proving that fact, but honestly it seems like some of the terminology and notation has changed since the 70's, and I roundly can't make heads or tails of it. The other sources I can find are in textbooks that I don't own.

Ideally, what I'm hoping for is a segment of pseudocode or some modern language that generates an n-character string from some kind of seed, which then cannot be recognised in linear time.

It's of interest to me just because, coming from other areas of math where inverting a bijective function is routine, it's highly unintuitive that you provably can't sometimes in complexity theory.

 

I've read the old papers proving that fact, but honestly it seems like some of the terminology and notation has changed since the 70's, and I roundly can't make heads or tails of it. The other sources I can find are in textbooks that I don't own.

Ideally, what I'm hoping for is a segment of pseudocode or some modern language that generates an n-character string from some kind of seed, which then cannot be recognised in linear time.

It's of interest to me just because, coming from other areas of math where inverting a bijective function is routine, it's highly unintuitive that you provably can't sometimes in complexity theory.

 

All the new art, I presume, is still over there.

 

Bluesky, which uses it, has been opened to federation now, and the standard basically just looks better than ActivityPub. Has anyone heard about a project to make a Lemmy-style "link aggregator" service on it?

 

It's a few months old, but in light of recent events I think it still checks out. Make sure to watch the walkaround!

 

So, this ate up a full day. Thought someone else might think it was neat. The rules were I allowed myself to look up dates, but not whole new figures I wasn't familiar with, and the goal was to go as far back as possible:

Greta Thunberg 2003-
Emannuel Macron 1977-
Roger Penrose 1931-
Elizabeth II 1926-2022
Albert Einstein 1879-1955
Franz-Joseph I 1830-1916
Victoria I 1819-1901
Nepoleon Bonaparte 1769-1821
Benjamin Franklin 1706-1790
Isaac Newton 1642-1727
Galileo Galilei 1564-1642
William Shakespeare 1564-1616
Elizabeth I 1533-1603
Henry VIII 1491-1547
Christopher Colombus 1451-1506
Mehmed the Conquerer 1432-1481
Zheng He 1371-1433
Geoffrey Chaucer 1343-1400
Wat Tyler 1341-1381
Ibn Buttata 1304-1368
Marco Polo 1254-1324
Kublai Khan 1215-1294
Fibbonacci 1170-1245
Ghengis Khan 1162-1227
Saladin 1138-1193
Averroes 1126-1198
Ismail Al-Jazari 1136–1206
Muhammad al-Idrisi 1100-1165
Al-Ghazali 1058-1111
Alexios I Komnenos 1057-1118
Pope Urban II 1035-1099
Willie the Bastard 1028-1087
Avicenna 980-1037
Leif Erikson 975-1020
Erik the Red 950-1003
Herald Fairhair 850-932
Ingolfr Arnarson 849-910
Al-Khwarizmi 780-850
Charlemagne 748-814
Pope Gregory III Unk.-741
An Lushan 703-757
Charles Martel 688-741
Bede 673-735
Empress Wu Zetian 624-705
Aisha bint Abi-Bakr 614-678
Emporer Taizhong 598-649
Prophet Muhammad 570-632
Maurice I 582-602
Gregory of Tours 538-594
Brendan the Navigator 484-577
Justinian I 482-565
Clovis I 466-511
Aleric II 460-507
Theodoric the Great 454-526
Odoacer 433-493
Attila the Hun 406-453
Aleric I 370-411
Theodosius the Great 347-395
Valentinian the Great 321-375
Constantine the Great 272-337
Diocletian 242-311
Valarian 199-264
Ardashir I 180-242
Philip the Arab 204-249
Commodus 161-192
Septimus Severus 145-211
Antoninus 86-161
Hadrian 76-138
Pliny the Younger 61-113
Trajan 53-117
Pliny the Elder 23-79
Josephus 37-100
Nero 37-68
Caligula 12-41
Wang Mang 46-23 BC
Augustus 63-14 BC
Virgil 70-19 BC
Herod the Great 72-4 BC
Julius Caesar 100-44 BC
Pompey 106-48 BC
Cicero 106-43 BC
Cato the Younger 95-46 BC
Gaius Marius 157-86 BC
Gaius Graccus 154-121 BC
Tiberius Graccus 163-133 BC
Hipparchus 190-120 BC
Cato the Elder 234-149 BC
Hannibal 247-183 BC
Archimedes 287-212 BC
Pyrrus 319-272 BC
Epicurus 341-270 BC
Alexander the Great 353-323 BC
Aristotle 384-322 BC
Plato 427-348 BC
Socrates 470-399 BC
Euripedes 480-406 BC
Xerxes I 518-465 BC
Darius the Great 550-486 BC
Croesus 585-546 BC
Cyrus the Great 600-530 BC
Nebuchadnezzar II the Great 605-562 BC
Sappho 630-570 BC

At this point I crapped out, because I hadn't read about Ashurbanipal yet. If I had, I could have gone a few further:

Ashurbanipal 685-631 BC
Taharqa Ukn.-664 BC
Sennacherib 705-681 BC
Sargon II 770-705 BC

Unfortunately my East Asian history is ass, and I'm still not sure about the deeds of You of Zhou, so it ends there. The early 1100's were also weirdly hard, although I'm not sure why - thank god for al-Idrisi's map.

A few things that surprised me: Fibbonacci could have met Ghengis Khan, Benjamin Franklin could have talked to Isaac Newton, and Galileo was literally the same age as Shakespeare.

238
submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by [email protected] to c/canada
 

Last trip to the grocery store I couldn't find any non-US salad kits, and Silk NextMilk is made down there now, because I guess our plants were the listeria ones. Chip dip was surprisingly hard to find too, although I did it.

I'm very pleased with how many vegetables actually come from Mexico (definitely via the US though), and there's even a few things you can get from greenhouses, so that situation is less dire than I'd expected.

 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/25237011

About Carcinisation

About Speculative Evolution

Just imagine... Crablike humans, crablike dogs, crablike birds!

26
submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

I just found out DivestOS is dead and could use it.

 

Refactoring gets really bad reviews, but from where I'm sitting as a hobby programmer in relative ignorance it seems like it should be easier, because you could potentially reuse a lot of code. Can someone break it down for me?

I'm thinking of a situation where the code is ugly but still legible here. I completely understand that actual reverse engineering is harder than coding on a blank slate.

view more: next ›