Yeah, I’m not a model for good programing. I don’t program professionally, I just like challenging myself in my hobby projects.

No, I don’t do anything professionally. I just enjoy challenging myself.

I am both the left guy and right guy. If you can’t program without using a memory safe language, it’s a skill issue. But I also don’t want to switch to rust because I like the challenge of manual memory management. (Also rust’s syntax and semantics looks like it was designed by a monkey attacking a typewriter.)

Rust is already obsolete, compared to Stingpie’s excellent assembly language, paired with object oriented programming!

This is the SEALPOOP specification:

1. an assembler must create a binary program which satisfies the programmer’s specifications.
2. a compiler must translate the programmer’s code into SEALPOOP’s parallel instruction set source, which should be fed into the SEALPOOP PISS assembler.

Ok. I’m getting tired. You bested me this round. Have a nice day.

You say it’s the goal of the proletariat to protect the revolution, but why would they? Each proletariat would benefit from the revolution’s failure- they could live better lives as the bourgeois. You talk about the proletariat like they are some monolithic entity, with a single mind and goal. You talk big about helping the individual, but cannot see beyond their class. The proletariat is a person, with needs, desires and opinions. What father would hold the abstract ideals of the “revolution” over the life of his sick daughter? Any father I know would do anything for the safety of his children, even hoard life-saving medicine from others.

Communist logix

we need to abolish private property so everybody has equal power.

we class of people to maintain public ownership

After all, how can we enforce public ownership without a more powerful class of enforcers?

What do you mean by offensive?

There’s an uncountably infinite range of numbers between 1 & 2. OP is still wrong though. If you existing has some non-zero probability, there must be an infinite number of you, since any positive number multiplied by infinity is infinity.

Did you guys find this hard? There are only four possible ways to move a ring, two of which are disallowed by the rules. Out of the remaining two, one of them is simply undoing what you just did.

All of science is based on the assumption that what is observed and experienced exists. You cannot gather data without at some point experiencing some representation of that data. In this sense, qualia is the most real thing possible, because experience is the essence of evidence.

I’m not sure I entirely understand your argument. “We decide it exists, therefore it exists” is the basis of all science and mathematics. We form axioms based on what we observe, then extrapolate from those axioms to form a coherent logical system. While it may be a leap of logic to assume others have consciousness, it’s a common decency to do that.

Onto the second argument, when I mean “what signal is qualia” I’m talking about what is the minimum number of neurons we could kill to completely remove someone’s experience of qualia. If we could sever the brain stem, but that would kill an excess of cells. We could kill the sensory cortex, but that would kill more cells than necessary. We could sever the connection between the sensory cortex and the rest of the brain, etc. As you minimize the number of cells, you move up the hierarchy, and eventually reach the prefrontal cortex. But once you reach the prefrontal cortex, the neurons that deliver qualia and the neurons that register it can’t really be separated.

Lastly, you said that assuming consciousness is some unique part of the universe is wrong because it cannot be demonstrably proven to exist. I can’t really argue against this, since it seems to relate to the difference in our experience of consciousness. To me, consciousness feels palpable, and everything else feels as thin as tissue paper.

Here’s another way of framing it: qualia, by definition, is not measurable by any instrument, but qualia must exist in some capacity in order for us to experience it. So, me must assume that either we cannot experience qualia, or that qualia exists in a way we do not fully understand yet. Since the former is generally rejected, the latter must be true.

You may argue that neurochemical signals are the physical manefestation of qualia, but making that assumption throws us into a trap. If qualia is neurochemical signals, which signals are they? By what definition can we precisely determine what is qualia and what is not? Are unconscious senses qualia? If we stimulated a random part of the brain, unrelated to the sensory cortex, would that create qualia? If the distribution of neurochemicals can be predicted, and the activations of neurons was deterministic as well, would calculating every stimulation in the brain be the same as consciousness?

In both arguments, consciousness is no clearer or blurrier, so which one is correct?

Here I thought this was an IT crowd reference.

deleted by creator

There are actually two standards here. Kibibytes was introduced later as a way to reduce confusion cause by the uninitiated thinking the JEDEC standard refered to powers of ten instead of two. That’s why I’m saying that 64 kilobytes is equal to 2^16 bytes, because that’s what the original standard was.

I still use mb and kb as 1024 instead of 1000, because I prefer to not have units switched around from under me. 2^16 will always address 64kb, not 65.

goes on an anti-tankie post Comments that his posts are always dogpilled by the most anti-tankie group. Claims ad hominem when someone points it out.

:)

1 yard is about a meter. 3 feet in a yard. Just divide by 3 and that’s good enough for 99% of cases.

OG Content Posted on Lemmy!