Spyke

Replies

Comment on

Shrodinger’s Megamind

Reply in thread

It's an analogy, the specific case doesn't matter. It demonstrates that infinite does not mean literally everything, it's possible for some item to be missing from any particular infinite set. In a box of infinite apples you won't have an orange; in a box of infinite fruit you won't have a chicken; in an infinite multiverse you by definition won't have a universe which isn't part of that multiverse.

Comment on

Timeline of our world

There's no year 0, it starts at year 1 CE (Common Era, you may also see this written as "AD 1", Anno Domini 1). The concept of zero is relatively recent, it didn't exist in its current form when this year numbering system was established.
If you go back one year from there you hit 1 BCE (Before Common Era, also written 1 BC, Before Christ) and start counting up one for each year you go back.

So, 2022 years ago is 1 CE; 2023 years ago is 1 BCE; and 2024 years ago is 2 BCE.

Comment on

Timeline of our world

Reply in thread

That's an interesting question and not something I think I can fully answer, but it seems likely.

AD did come first when the year numbering system was first created in 525 CE since the system was based on an estimate of the birth or conception (unclear which, there's some debate) of Jesus Christ; hence the name "anno domini" ("in the year of the lord"). I'm not sure when BC was first used since that's English rather than the original Latin.
CE (originally meaning "Christian Era") wasn't popularised until ten or so centuries later. It's more popular now in part due to the fact Common Era is less overtly Christian-centric.

Interestingly, ISO 8601 (objectively the best and most correct way to write dates, fight me) doesn't use AD or CE, the standard just counts normally. So you'd go from year +0001 (1 CE) to +0000 (1 BC) to -0001 (2 BC). I guess that means I'll have to change my original answer; there is indeed a year 0 in the Gregorian calendar depending on the way you represent years.

Comment on

How many Lemmy users are non-technical background?

Reply in thread

A server is just some computer somewhere that other machines can connect to. You can get specialised hardware and network setups and other technical stuff, but you can also just use your personal laptop as a server by allowing people to connect to it. A server essentially boils down to someone leaving their computer on.

Wifi is just radio waves. You can think of it like people talking on a two-way radio, except instead of humans speaking it's computers.

196

Comment on

Rule of being a free speech absolutist

Reply in thread

I'm not sure you're making the point you think you're making.

Brunette means brown hair (ie not redhead), straight means attracted to the opposite gender (ie not gay), cis means identifies as gender assigned at birth (ie not trans), but none of those are binary options. You could be blond, you could be bi, you could be non-trans-identifying non-binary. The existence of terms for one state does not imply a binary, but "X and non-X" is literally as binary as you can get.

196

Comment on

Rule of being a free speech absolutist

Reply in thread

I'm not sure how many more examples you need to understand this, it's not exactly a difficult concept.

Two is not one, "not one" does not mean two.

Blue is not red, "not blue" does not mean red.

Cat is not dog, "not dog" does not mean cat.

USA is not Canada, "not Canada" does not mean USA.

Water is not air, "not air" does not mean water.

I am not you, "not you" does not mean me.

Brunette is not redhead, "not redhead" does not mean brunette.

Straight is not gay, "not gay" does not mean straight.

None of these are binary options, just as you yourself have acknowledged the existence of non-binary gender identification. Boolean logic only makes sense for binary options.

Trying to enforce "trans and non-trans" as the only two terms is trying enforcing a binary that you have admitted does not exist.

You reached the end