mtizim

Why? I have mild tism, I found it quite funny and quite real, it even felt good to be seen.

If you're after that, try performing for (campfire guitar? Christmas carols?) or with (entry level jams, especially electronic ones) other people. Much easier to start out that one would think, but it requires a lot of self-confidence. With performing, you can scratch that creative itch by adapting/embellishing source material. A small lick here and there or a handful of alternative voicings are enough!

For me it's also that it works as a joke setup, just like "ligma" or "updog".

Why not? Exactly because there is nothing tethering our axioms on paper to what is necessarily true. You could formulate something wildly different from ZF±C/Peano/whatever normal axiom system, but we wouldn't call it "math", and what we currently call "math" will work under any conditions

With no mathematical rigor there is no mathematical understanding. You are robbing yourself, as the concepts are meaningless without the context.

Truly appreciate the power of linear approximations by going through algebra, appreciate the tricks of calculus, marvel at the inherent tradeoffs of knowledge with estimator theory, and see the joy of the central limit theorem being true. All of this knowledge is free, and much more interesting than a formal restatement of "it was not supposed to rain, but I see clouds outside, I guess I'll expect light rain instead of a big thunderstorm".

I don't agree at all, vcv rack helped me understand synthesis in a much deeper way than I would have otherwise. What's a retrigger? Oscillator drift? Why do you modulate with a lfo? These are much simpler to understand when you're patching modules by hand in vcv, especially when you start with a blank slate.

On the other hand, before vcv, seeing a vst synth just had me overwhelmed instead.

I'd recommend everyone reading this to get free vcv + the surge vcv library, and just play around with it.

You're in for a nice trip, the concept is called Geometric Algebra:

https://youtu.be/60z_hpEAtD8?si=HHs_9m0IJ43nfI3S (~50m video)

TLDW: Yes, the concept is there, makes much more sense than a cross product (which is just an oriented area) and generalizes really nicely.

Alternatively, read: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bivector

Both can be true.

- Investing provides benefits for society at large - Investors are exploiting the labour of others for their own gain

(but also your examples only work in a very weird worldview where everything is privatised, but I don't want to bother discussing that on this website)

Not at all, pretty much all popular languages (except C/C++) are as safe as (safe) rust. The only safety rust brings to the table is memory safety, which most languages achieve with a runtime and a garbage collector, which have a performance tradeoff.

It's not, we just use NAND everywhere because they're easier to make with transistors. You can get functional completeness with a NOR instead, or alternatively with some different combinations of other logical operators.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_completeness

We even implement AND gates with NANDs in electronics (because they're way simpler), but we might not have to limit ourselves to a single base gate with mechanical computers.

If you stop squinting, you'll see that neither the average exclusive activity enthusiast, nor a person using "normie" unironically are shallow nor superficial. Maybe your experience can be explained by how you see these people, not by how these people actually are.

do look in the mirror, don't panic, face your fears, and look away full of love.

I knew what you were implying of course, I just wanted to see it written explicitely.

It's funny to see a russian sockpuppet under an article about propaganda.

a lesson lost in time

What exactly are you implying?

Not a product. It's literally free, free as in free speech, and free as in you're free not to use it.

Building the code yourself for every update is also a solved problem on every system with a feature complete package manager, including Windows. Trust is not so easily solvable, but if you trust nobody, you can choose to look at ads.

Thank you. I don't know if it's for me, but doesn't look that boring.

Could you name some (not commonly known ways to get fuck you money)? As a young tech guy doing stuff in startup spaces, I'm genuinely interested.

Of course, "no silver bullet", especially to make big money, but I'm curious, from the perspective of someone who'd place around 1.3 on the spectrum you described.

I think many of us here think the industry sells them opium, not a band-aid.

single dose trial

Humans make better decisions when in a state they've been pretty much their entire lives than in an altered one, more news at 11.

The study seems useless - it's like giving the participants their own, long used car, asking them to set a time, and then comparing that to the time they would set in the same car, but with a slightly different clutch. I'd very gladly read a similar comparison for long term regular users.

If you really want to write it yourself, sure. This code is very easily automatically generated.

https://pub.dev/packages/json_serializable

As software developers we learn software technologies for breakfast, not entire industrial processes...

Your guess is very wrong. I've been using my deck as a laptop occasionally, and I've seen a lot of posts on a sub on the recently deceased site of people using it as such. And why not? It's basically a touchscreen laptop without a keyboard and with a small screen.

Also, the deck does not replicate a subset of the desktop experience, it just contains a desktop experience. Unless the KDE desktop is not a desktop now. If that's the case - it runs windows.

I don't think he is intentionally dishonest. When I read "decades ago", I thought "three or more", roughly the same way "several" works.

The gitless vs git section is lacking. I can see the diffrences, but you're not making any claims that it's better. I don't really know why I should use gitless from this page.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/C0_and_C1_control_codes#Fiel...

The problem is that any delimiter that has no chance of appearing in actual text will be hard to discover, and cannot appear on a standard keyboard (so it is not easily human-writable). So we are kind of stuck with the comma for human readable formats.

I'd say just do them and come up with stuff to do. There are many of non-science forums on psychedelics, and you can quickly get the general idea how they can help you. But if you want to be sciency about it, read the aforementioned journals and do the "stuff" they describe yourself. Compared to experimental compounds, many are very easy (and often legal) to obtain. (but probably not legal to possess)

Most of the psychedelic research I've seen boils down to "take psychedelics and do stuff to get a result, here's why you get the result". You can absolutely take psychedelics and do stuff yourself.

What awful things to say.

By this definition, there's still multiple credible reddit clients - relay, baconreader, rif.

I think the parent meant

"`for any choice of (∀) nutrient, pasteurization kills nutrient` evaluates to false"

Rather than

"`any nutrient (∃), pasteurization kills nutrient` evaluates to false" - which is what you seem to be responding to.