- 43 Posts
- 920 Comments
Filling the hearts of lemmings around the world with joy?
671·21 days agoThe madman theory is a political theory commonly associated with the foreign policy of U.S. president Richard Nixon and his administration, who tried to make the leaders of hostile communist bloc countries think Nixon was irrational and volatile so that they would avoid provoking the U.S. in fear of an unpredictable response.
But luckily unambiguous.
As I said, it always fucks me up. The AM/PM indicator wraps at a different hour than the hours. Aaargh!
As someone who grew up with a 24-hour clock, I can deal with 12 hours. Usually there’s no confusion if your store opens at 7am or 7pm. But 12:30PM being a valid time and meaning ‘00:30 on the next day’ fucks me up every time.
Are you talking about a watch with 24 different numbers on it?
I took this introductory passage to be the current tradition. The quoted bible passage makes it look like more of a mandatory thing:
[5] If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child […]; her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother unto her.
[7] And if the man like not to take his brother’s wife, then his brother’s wife shall go up to the gate unto the elders, and say: ‘My husband’s brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband’s brother unto me.’
[9] then shall his brother’s wife […] loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face; and […] say: ‘So shall it be done unto the man that doth not build up his brother’s house.’
This seems to me a bit outside your usual family obligations
It was actually the law to do that, IIRC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yibbum
Just because there were no Catholics, that doesn’t mean that people weren’t violating some divine law (people also call it “natural law”). And unless you have a very specific meaning of “sin” in mind, there were absolutely “things you shouldn’t do or God will be angry”. Religion didn’t start with Jesus.
Free Speech, baybeee.
And yes, spending money counts as speaking.
I’ve made up my mind. Don’t confuse me with facts!
They’re ’Muricans. You gotta give them some slack. Thinking doesn’t come naturally to them.
Testurteil: „Befriedigend”
A little joke for the Germans.
To save people a click: ISO is 51200 (in layman’s terms: holy shit it goes this high?) and they still exposed for 1/4s (somewhat normal for low-light photography) at an aperture of f/2.8 (gaping hole).
Suppose the average person p0 has n acquaintances. Then a naive approach would say that each of p0’s acquaintances (call one of them p1) also has n acquaintances, leading p0 with n2 acquaintances of the second degree.
However, in a social network, many of p1’s acquaintances are shared between p0 and p1. Let’s say that r⋅n (1/n≤r≤1) of p1’s acquaintances are actually first-order acquaintances of p0. The lower limit for r is 1/n because naturally one of p1’s acquaintances is p0 themselves.
This gives us n⋅(1−p)⋅n = n2⋅(1−p) as the number of second-degree acquaintances, if my math is mathing. Increase n for more extraverted people in the network, and increase p for more closely-knit networks.
To model the headline X % know someone who knows, we solve 1 / [n2⋅(1−p)] ≥ x where x is X% expressed as a fraction. Plugging in n=100 and p = 1/10 (I pulled these numbers out of my ass) and X=20% we get 1 / [1002 ⋅ (1−.1))] = 1 / [ 10^4 ⋅ 0.9 ] = 1 / 900; again, if my math is mathing.
So this headline is true if about 1 in 900 people are in a relationship with AI.
No stars! They haven’t learned from their stupid mistake 60 years ago! /s
“Asterix” being some spin on the latin word for “star”, aster.
I wonder how many AI-relationships it actually takes to get 20% of a network to know one of them.
To nitpick for nitpicking’s sake: You can make Ctrl+Click work in JS.