I have never played Mario 64 outside of a couple five-minute sessions on a Toys-R-Us demo when I was maybe 10, but the Watch for Rolling Rocks half-A-press video - a speedrun with the added condition that a longer time will trump a shorter time if the player presses ‘A’ (jump) less than in the faster run - is almost unquestionably my favorite youtube video ever. It’s a hilariously silly niche thing, but beyond that it’s like watching someone try to explain their doctoral dissertation, making their best attempt while knowing full-well both that they won’t be able to get their audience to follow every piece and also that no one else is as engaged in the topic as they are. As long aa I don’t feel like a captive audience, I can find a real joy in exposure to that sort of enthusiasm. Laying that on top of something that’s just a little funny hits the spot for me so much.

Now, you’re probably wondering what I’m gonna need all this speed for. After all, I do build up speed for twelve hours. But to answer that, we need to talk about parallel universes, and if you thought my other tangents were complicated, just you wait. Okay, so Mario’s position is a floating point number, but it’s converted to a short when the game uses it to test for collision with floor triangles…

It is kind of depressing to be honest. I’m antifascist, I just happen to also be a loser.

When in a healthy relationship it doesn’t bother me, but now that I’m single again and will be looking at revisiting the whole dating thing at some point it’s uncomfortable to think too much about.

Completely missed their opportunity to start the headline with “Proud New Dad” and having the reveal at the end be that he was no less proud of this before fatherhood.

I still remember like twenty years ago undergrad probability theory a professor posed some question to the class and even though this prof was normally very thorough with being helpful and walking through answers with students, this one guy answered so wildly off-the-mark the prof paused a bit and then just said “no” and moved on.

We were doing final exam review for earlier semester material and the question was about the probability of randomly drawing some hand of cards, something like a hand of five cards with exactly three jacks. Guy answered very confidently “it’s 1 minus the null set”. I remember this because I immediately asked the kid next to me what was said and just heard the same thing repeated.

So many things wrong. A “null set” is a concept from measure theory, which was not used in this second-year-undergrad course. Since using “the” here implies there’s just one, he almost certainly meant the empty set. That’s whatever. But we’re not in a set theory class, 1 is a number, not a set, so we’re not in a context where it makes any sense to subtract sets from numbers. But if we just push all of that aside and say okay fine, represent 1 as a set however you want and subtract the empty set, taking any set A and subtracting the empty set just gives A back, meaning he’s given an extremely roundabout way of saying the probability is 1, a 100% chance of randomly drawing that specific hand of cards.

Situation where it’s would be one thing if we’re early on and he’ll discover he’s in over his head, but right before the final is such a wild time to sound fully confident in an answer that wrong.

Moral of the story: sometimes having that much confidence behind an awful understanding will give bystanders enough secondhand embarrassment that they’ll still think of you from time to time twenty years later.

It was a warning to ensure that your discussion include love for the people behind the discussion, and not just hate for them for being wrong.

I think I’ve gone over twenty years with this being the exact thing that bothers me and have never been able to articulate it as well as you just did in one sentence.

People without empathy shouldn’t have the right to lead people (politics, work, …).

The inclusion of the phrase “have the right to” is what changes this statement from sensible to nonsense. We’d need a way to declare who has that right, and I cannot imagine any idea of an empathy certification board that is not horrifically dystopian.

I’m not convinced, could you share your evidence?

Probably shouldn’t assume that guy’s personal view is the norm.

For me that sounds exactly as appealing as using pineapple.

You don’t have to like it for it to be a valid topping.

That’s a hill you will die on from old age. I have never once heard someone say pineapple is not a valid topping in a way I thought was meant to be taken literally and not as an exaggerated way of saying “I don’t like it”.

How is that true in a way different from other industries? I do think there’s no necessity for the race of the VA to correspond with the race of the character. That might be because I don’t have a good grasp on the arguments otherwise though.

The argument I’ve heard in favor of VAs matching their characters is to avoid laundering white perspectives to minority characters, which would make sense if the VA didn’t have their livelihood on the line when asked to read from a script written by a cishet white man. I feel like requiring a minority do that makes no difference other than providing a cover of legitimacy for the words said.

But as a cishet white male myself, maybe I’m mischaracterizing the argument, I’d be curious. I have asked my (racial minority) wife at one point a couple years back and she wasn’t sure.

It’s a given that there are insensitivities in hirings, but I struggle to imagine a way in which that would be unique to voice acting specifically.

The Gates foundation explicitly lobbied against Oxford’s initial plan to open source their covid vaccine. Gates’ worship of intellectual propery law is responsible for the patent on the astrazeneca vaccine. The project was initially started under the hope that the third world being able to manufacture their own vaccines without owing royalties would be important in limiting the spread of covid.

If we go with the email analogy, people rarely ever search for ‘email’, they just go to the specific ones they know.

I get it, but everyone going to gmail is not a good thing and never has been. The paradigm shift is more meaningful than simply growing lemmy as a community. Without that, the only difference from a mainstream social network today would be a handful of big players rather than just one.

I used facebook way too much and the thing that got me to finally delete my account in 2011 was I had made a post about discovering diaspora and linking my account. Hung out with a friend a month or two later and he loaded up my facebook profile and could see every post I had ever made except the one about a federated facebook alternative.

Veering a little off-topic now, but facebook contacts being my irl friends made that feel so dangerous to me. If half my friends have opinion A and the other half opinion B, then if one opinion is entirely censored but I still see everything posted matching the approved opinion, that will have an enormous sway over how my worldview develops, in a way different from seeing strangers agreeing on those same things.

There is only one model structure that can be put on the category of small categories for which the weak equivalences coincide with honest equivalences of categories. It’s called the Joyal-Tierney model structure. You can define the suspension of an object in any model category as the homotopy pushout to two terminals, then define an abstract notion of a sphere in any model category by setting the 0-sphere as the coproduct of two terminals and the (n+1)-sphere as the suspension of the n-sphere.

A small category is a CW-complex if and only if it is a groupoid.

What I’m reading is he was right on the money about the pixel character being a more appealing love interest.

h-node?

I was making fun of the guy who was arguing with her. That’s why at the start of the very next sentence I said I was not being serious in the part you quoted, and then right after saying that I called out that exact behavior.

I get that sarcasm isn’t always easy to detect online so I wrote a second short paragraph to explicitly clarify that the first was sarcasm. Sorry for being annoyed but I feel kind of frustrated that still wasn’t clear enough to avoid getting condescended to.

The first one is correct as others have said, but the second one is not ambiguous enough to confuse anyone nor weird enough for anyone to bat an eye at, you’re fine with either.

When women talk about the problems they face, it’s not helpful for you to go “That doesn’t happen”.

Your bias is showing, that’s not a helpful response when anyone talks about their problems. Not just women.

Talking more seriously (but not that much more), I have some appreciation for being this brazen in the whole “I live in the real world and know women aren’t shown disrespect out of nowhere by men they don’t know, unlike you women with your lived experiences” shtick.