GreyEyedGhost

I think nerdy stuff is attractive to people on the autism spectrum, and while people on the spectrum tend to like consistency, they also have trouble recognizing social norms, let alone following them. So some act that is in large part (from other people’s perspective, at least) a deviation from social norms isn’t that much of a problem to them. And why wouldn’t trans people prefer to be in spaces where people don’t care how they’re living their life? Now, add on that exposure tends to normalize social experiences, and people on the spectrum are already weird in their own way, and the neurotypical people in those nerdy spaces are already used to dealing with weird people. Adding a different flavor of weird isn’t that much of a stretch.

Or, to put it another way,

Good God, who’s manning the internet?

Does that make the drone an avatar?

Biblically accurate angel.

Seriously, am I wrong?

There was a story about a researcher using evolving algorithms to build more efficient systems on FPGAs. One of the weird shortcuts was some system that normally used a clock circuit, but none was available, and it made a dead-end circuit the would give a electric pulse when used, giving it a makeshift clock circuit. The big problem was that better efficiency often used quirks of the specific board, and his next step was to start testing the results on multiple FPGAs and using the overall fitness to get past that quirk/shortcut.

Pretty sure this was before 2010. Found a possible link from 2001.

One of the more memorable lines from “Whoes Line Is It Anyway”, for me as least, was when one of them said, “How’s it hanging, Tes-ti-cles?”

I’m not sure what that has to do with what I said. The difficulty you’re having with this conversation isn’t something I can help you with.

No, criticizing democrats, or republicans for that matter, isn’t a solution. It’s a first step at best, and masturbatory self-soothing at worst.

I don’t think anyone said you had to like them. And by all means, you can vote third party, or not vote at all. Now, how did we get here again? One more item for that list! I also already gave you a solution of how not to be criticized for being a bad actor, but you seem to be happier focusing on the symptoms rather than the causes.

I’m tired of dealing with your paper-thin arguments piecemeal. Feel free to search “flaws in American democracy” and read the answers by people far more educated in the field than me, and apparently you, and stop wasting the time of people here.

For someone who got so offended when someone supposedly put words in your mouth, you’re pretty eager to do the same. If you design your system to only work when altruism is your guiding factor, well, look around. And if there are no serious penalties for breaking the standards, well, again, look around. And if you think having a system like that isn’t going to attract people who are perfectly fine with screwing over the majority of the country for their own personal gain, guess what, we have a whole list of people who clearly have. If these don’t sound like problems with the system to you, at least you know what flavor the different colors of crayons are.

To put it succinctly, bad actors will abuse the system for their own personal gain. Whether it be a quarterback having a football slightly under pressure so he can throw it better or a politician buying and selling stocks based on the announcements or decisions they’re going to make in a few days, with no negative repercussions attached, then expecting anything less is a level of naivety I can’t hope to describe.

So, are you saying that taking bribes isn’t in their self-interest, or that there are no repercussions from taking bribes which would be a flaw in the system? There are the first two items you can put on that list I was talking about.

How about, “The system is broken in multiple ways, a list of which can be provided, and the behavior of most Democrats is merely a symptom or self-serving response to the state of that system”?

I’ll certainly grant you the Statist label, but I still don’t see how being critical of the state is simping. And I would argue, like the article, that rather than being inspired by these resilient groups, your first response should be an intense anger at the state for failing so badly, with that inspiration or admiration being a distant second.

99% of the time I drive, my car insurance has no bearing on the outcome of my trip, but I really appreciate it that 1% of the time it does.

There’s nothing significant stopping you from spinning up an instance and writing a script to create accounts and give him upvotes. Be the change you want to see!

It’s a very American view to think that individuals in the community having to step in to keep people from dying is more reasonable than the government of one of the wealthiest nations in the world stepping in to keep people from dying. And somehow criticizing the state for failing to provide for the most basic needs of its citizens is simping.

None of the people using the wood bank are taking their wellbeing into their own hands. They’re relying on their community to support them so they don’t die. And that’s great that it’s happening, but it’s shifty that the government, ostensibly the representative of the community, can’t institutionalize what is clearly the will of the community.

Summarize that sentence into a thumbs up or thumbs down emoji.

The kind of truck that can handle any kinds of undeveloped forest are more expensive than the land you say is too expensive for the people who would want to do what you’re saying. So, unrealistic expectations all around.

I like how your dream of self-sufficiency starts with there being g a road you can drive on. Or do you think most woods are reasonable places for driving trucks? You’d be better off buying a donkey or mule. Worst case scenario, you’d have a bit more meat to eat before you starved.

I almost always called family from the previous generations by title and first name, or just title. So, Grandpa, Aunt Sue, etc. Cousins and siblings got first name only. My kids call their immediate parents mom and dad, and their step-parents mom or my wife’s first name. I rarely associate with my ex or her husband, and they refer to him when talking to me by his first name. If they were close enough to him to refer to him as dad, I’d be happy for them to have that good a relationship.

A single point of data rarely answers the question unless you’re looking for absolutes. “Will zipping 10 files individually be smaller than zipping them into a single file?” Sure, easy enough to do it once. Now, what kind of data are we talking about? How big, and how random, is the data in those files? Does it get better with more files, or is the a sweet spot where it’s better, but it’s worse if you use too few files, or too many? I don’t think you could test for those scenarios very quickly, and they all fall under the original question. OTOH, someone who has studied the subject could probably give you an answer easily enough in just a few minutes. Or he could have tried a web search and find the answer, which pretty much comes down to, “It depends which compression system you use.”