Part of the world: takes a step forward

Japan: not on my fucking watch

Oddly? This is not odd at all.

It's been a while sincce I wrote code, but I'll try to remember. Basically disk size and ram size have no connection. Disk size is for already generated assets (maybe you need to remember how the planes look like, so you create assets for all the planes. Or you want to have textures for the scenery, or for the Lincoln monument, or whatever).

But then you need to load those resources into RAM to access them faster, because if you try to load them directly from disk, it's a lot slower. So some part of those 64GB of RAM is because you are loading some premade assets.

But aside from this, there's also dynamically generated data that you have no way of knowing about at the beginning of the program, so you can't prepare in advance and generate assets for it. Like say for example the player wants to begin flying the plane - he's gonna have some different inputs than any other player. Maybe he drives slower at the beginning, or goes a little to the right when he takes off. Or his destination will be completely different. You now need to remember his velocity, his position on the map, the direction of his flight, his altitude, his plane's weight and who knows what else, I'm not a pilot. All of this, you allocate memory dynamically, based on user changes, and this uses the RAM as well.

Not to mention - you can make a 1kb program that takes 64 GB of RAM. You just ask the operating system for that much memory. You don't even need to fully use it. It'll take you one line of code.

All this to say - nothing odd about the program being smaller than the RAM requirements. It can mean it's not optimized, but it can also mean it has a lot of dynamic calculations that it's doing and a lot of stuff it needs to remember (and in the case of a flight Sim this wouldn't surprise me).

5 years ago

old

Now listen here you little shit

My city's taxi system was completely changed by Uber, as were many parts of the country. So while it might not be true anymore, and taxi drivers with bad attitudes and those fudging the meter might have been mostly weeded out, it's because of Uber that this happened. And it's because of their unions that it hadn't happened before. But the moment there started being some competition in town as opposed to their previous monopoly on the market, they had to back down if they wanted to even survive, let alone come out on top over Uber.

So while yes, uber employees are being fucked over, that has less of an impact on things than you imply. I'll still get an Uber/Bolt instead of a taxi 9/10 times, because immoral business practices are still better than immoral & illegal practices backed by a monopoly that you are powerless to change.

Babe wake up, new prime number just dropped.

Get twenty phone numbers. Whenever you meet someone you know, tell them you changed your number because of this stalker and to give you their phone so you can give them the new number. Give each person a different number every time, until you reach twenty. Make a note of who got each number. Wait a week. If you weren't contacted yet, do the same thing with 20 other people.

When you ARE contacted again, you'll at least have a list of people who knew the number, if not the exact person. Then you put on a hoodie in a color you don't usually wear, take a baseball bat to their head from behind, get rid of hoodie and baseball bat in a dumpster on the other side of town and enjoy the rest of your life.

See, the beauty of a screenshot like this is - it captures a great moment in time. It's the moment someone should realize they are wrong. And that's a perfect moment. It's evocative. We've all been wrong before, we know what it's like. We can feel their reaction by how we ourselves reacted in the past. Or how we wished we had.

Now, this moment could have several different outcomes: that person could admit they're wrong and learn from it, they could panic and backtrack, they could delete their tweet or account out of shame, they could double down and be even more wrong and increase the lulz, they could come back with valid arguments and change your opinion etc. But. Depending on what your position is to the initial argument, you may not be satisfied with the outcome. You may find it annoying or roll your eyes. Of course it's possible that you find it even better than the initial moment, but that's not a guarantee.

So this screenshot is a tease in a way, but in other ways it's also a complete package. It won't have a disappointing ending. It won't promise more of itself and then fail to deliver. You can see the screenshot, imagine the outcome you want, and scroll to the next one.

This screenshot is... enough.

Also, I'll be fucked before I use anything musk has been associated with, I don't wanna support that asshole.

It could be, if she wants it to be.

It could also be the type of case where her lawyers stop openAI from ever using her voice again, if she wants that to be the case.

Being rich opens up options. If openAI would be using my voice instead, they'd have a wildly less popular product but nobody to sue them for it, cause I'd be using my money to still dream about home ownership at some point before I die, not to hire lawyers or fight windmills.

Since some people are getting a paywall I'll post the article text here:

Richard Dawkins has resigned from an atheism foundation over its “imposition” of a “new religion” of transgenderism.

Prof Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist and atheist, stepped down from the board of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) on Saturday after it censored an article supporting the belief that gender is biological.

Prof Dawkins accused the group of caving to the “hysterical squeals” of cancel culture after it deleted the article from its website, saying it was a “mistake” to have published it.

His resignation followed that of two other scientists, Jerry Coyne and Steven Pinker, who accused the foundation of imposing an ideology with the “dogma, blasphemy, and heretics” of a religion.

The scientists’ resignations come after FFRF’s Freethought Now! website published a piece last month by Kat Grant, entitled “What is a Woman?”, which argued that “any attempt to define womanhood on biological terms is inadequate” and that “a woman is whoever she says she is”.

In response to the piece, Prof Coyne, a fellow board member and biologist, wrote an article last week called “Biology is not Bigotry”, in which he defended “the biological definition of ‘woman’ based on gamete type” – or reproductive cells.

However, FFRF later pulled the article after a backlash and released a lengthy statement apologising for the “distress” it had caused.

“Despite our best efforts to champion reason and equality, mistakes can happen, and this incident is a reminder of the importance of constant reflection and growth,” co-presidents Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor wrote.

“Publishing this post was an error of judgment, and we have decided to remove it as it does not reflect our values and principles. We regret any distress caused by this post and are committed to ensuring it doesn’t happen again.”

‘Quasi-religious’ ideology

Following the atheist foundation’s decision to unpublish his article, Prof Coyne accused the group of peddling a “quasi-religious” ideology.

“That is a censorious behavior I cannot abide,” he wrote in an email. “I was simply promoting a biological rather than a psychological definition of sex, and I do not understand why you would consider that ‘distressing’ and also an attempt to hurt LGBTQIA+ people, which I would never do.”

“The gender ideology which caused you to take down my article is itself quasi-religious, having many aspects of religions and cults, including dogma, blasphemy, belief in what is palpably untrue (‘a woman is whoever she says she is’), apostasy, and a tendency to ignore science when it contradicts a preferred ideology.”

Prof Pinker, the US-Canadian psychologist, announced his resignation from the board by lamenting that the FFRF was “no longer a defender of freedom from religion but the imposer of a new religion, complete with dogma, blasphemy, and heretics”.

Prof Dawkins described publishing Grant’s “silly and unscientific” article as a “minor error of judgment”, but that the decision to remove Prof Coyne’s rebuttal was “an act of unseemly panic”.

He continued: “Moreover, to summarily take it down without even informing the author of your intention was an act of lamentable discourtesy to a member of your own advisory board. A board which I now leave with regret.”

Grant is a non-binary author and fellow at the FFRF, focusing on state versus Church issues that specifically impact the LGBTQ-plus community.

In their November article, Grant argued a woman cannot be defined as someone with a vagina, uterus or the ability to conceive, as this would exclude intersex people, women who have hysterectomies and those who have gone through menopause.

Grant claimed using biology to define female identity is “inadequate” and alleged that the views of groups who have fought against gender ideology “disregard both medical science and lived experience”.

‘New definition of woman’

In his response to Grant’s article, Prof Coyne accused the author of attempting “to force ideology onto nature” in order to “concoct a new definition of ‘woman’”.

“Why should sex be changeable while other physical traits cannot? Feelings don’t create reality,” he wrote. “Instead, in biology ‘sex’ is traditionally defined by the size and mobility of reproductive cells.

“It is not ‘transphobic’ to accept the biological reality of binary sex and to reject concepts based on ideology. One should never have to choose between scientific reality and trans rights.”

Founded in 1976, the FFRF is a US non-profit that promotes the separation of church and state.

Ms Laurie Gaylor, the FFRF president, said: “We have had the greatest respect for Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker, and are grateful that they sat on our honorary board for so many years. 

“We do not feel that support for LGBTQ rights against the religious backlash in the United States is mission creep. This growing difference of opinion probably made such a parting inevitable.”

oh don't mind him that's just Freddy, he don't like 'em colored folk and gays, he's a good kid, I knew his momma

Are you fucked în the head? "other than the presence of the Klan, those are normal people" what in the shit does that mean? Why the fuck is the Klan present there? Why is nobody chasing them away? How the shit are you doing anything in your life and you see goddamn nazis next to you waving the swastika and you don't stop to think "yo, maybe I shouldn't be here"? How do "normal people" end up mixed with Klan members and just roll with it, motherfucker? HOW?

If you ever need to have a dialogue on any subject and want a reasonable partner, don't worry - you can just have that morning coffee and you'll eventually shit out better choices than the entirety of ml, hexbear, lemmygrad and a bunch of other cuntwaffles combined.