![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/5170ed37-415d-42be-a3e7-3edd79eda681.png)
I’m really trying to make this one make sense, but it’s just not happening. Can you rephrase?
I’m really trying to make this one make sense, but it’s just not happening. Can you rephrase?
I’ve seen this a hundred times now and it annoys me every time – there are still separate digits, they’re just attached to a central line. I can invent another way of writing 1-9999 with a “single symbol” too, here we go:
0001
0002
0003
…
0099
0100
…
9998
9999
This game ruined “story” for all other games for me. Every time I hear pretty much any other game praised for its writing, I can’t help but roll my eyes internally. If they only knew
I always thought rabies was exceptionally rare, like just a handful of cases per year? Or is that just the US
Everyone is talking about dominant and recessive genes, so I just want to clarify a couple things.
The way your body directly uses genes is as a blueprint to construct proteins. Your cells are always producing proteins from the genes in all your chromosomes. It has complex ways of regulating how much of each it produces, but your body doesn’t care what chromosome it’s coming from. Once an embryo is fertilized, there’s really no distinction between “mom” chromosomes or “dad” chromosomes, as far as the embryo and its protein machinery are concerned.
“Dominant” and “recessive” characterization is about how those proteins affect your body at the macro scale, not whether your body actually uses the gene and produces its proteins – it always does that. For example, brown hair is a dominant trait, and blonde is recessive. But this is because producing any amount of brown pigment will make your hair brown, regardless of what other pigments you’re making, simply because it’s darker. Literally the same as combining blonde and brown paint. It has nothing to do with whether the genes are actually being expressed – the brown hair gene doesn’t stop the blonde hair gene from making its pigments.
Perhaps “always-on display” is clearer? Keeps it from turning off when idle
Chemists learn it without being taught linear algebra ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Why would anyone stop using those standards? You seem very confused about the incentives for adopting standards. Sure, maybe US-driven standards were chosen over other possibilities partly because of political environment, but once you have a perfectly good standard adopted you’re not just going to throw it out because the original author isn’t cool anymore. You don’t need a dominant power to adopt standards.
And for being “slightly political” and “focused on the standards,” your post sure does spend the majority of its time talking about only politics and not about standards at all
Sure, but now you’re talking about running a physical simulation of neurons. Real neurons aren’t just electrical circuits. Not only do they evolve rapidly over time, they’re powerfully influenced by their chemical environment, which is controlled by your body’s other systems, and so on. These aren’t just minor factors, they’re central parts of how your brain works.
Yes, in principle, we can (and have, to some extent) run physical simulations of neurons down to the molecular resolution necessary to accomplish this. But the computational power required to do that is massively, like billions of times, more expensive than the “neural networks” we have today, which are really just us anthropomorphizing a bunch of matrix multiplication.
It’s simply not feasible to do this at a scale large enough to be useful, even with all the computation on Earth.
I mean if we go wide enough, Descartes was talking about it in 1641
“uncommon” is an overstatement, you can get them pretty much anywhere that has pots and pans. It’s uncommon in that most people don’t bother owning one, not that they’re hard to get
In addition to what others said, the way you perceive light intensity is not linear. Between your eye adjusting to changing light levels and just the way your brains visual centers work, it’s closer to logarithmic. Indoor lighting at night probably feels like, what, 10% of the brightness of daylight? In reality it’s less than 1%, sometimes closer to 0.1%.
Legally, we adopted the metric system in the 70s, so more than “a few years” I’d say
100% on the “lots of missing 'how’s” point. You skipped the “ban lobbying” one, which is probably the second biggest “how” after the gerrymandering one. Lobbying is not some official policy or process. Senators don’t have “lobbying hours.” Lobbying is basically just “being at lunches and parties that politicians are at.” Unless you’re proposing Congress not be allowed to go out in public and live as secluded monks, I don’t see how you “abolish” it…
It’s wildly under-taught. It explains like half of all problems in the world. Education: “teaching to the test.” Economics: optimizing GDP at the expense of non-material well-being. Maximizing shareholder value by selling out employees and enshittifying your product. Software: “data-driven decision making” optimizing short -term gains over long-term because they are more measurable. That’s just off the top of my head.
Well, part of the point of NixOS is to eliminate that whole issue of forgotten tinkering – the whole system is defined right there in a few modules, or even one file, and there’s no way for un-tracked tinkering to exist outside those files.
But can I ask how you use your computer? What goes into these months of prep? I really can’t imagine it.
It’s still lemmy, but the mander.xyz instance is exactly this for science
Still better than cities skylines too. No shade, C:S is good and obviously made with love, but outside of the traffic sim, it’s never felt as fleshed out. Sc4 cities feel like places, C:S cities feel like model train sets
“digestible” and “nutritious” aren’t social constructs, so no. If your body can transform it chemically in a way that produces energy, it’s food. Otherwise it’s not. The same things are food regardless of your culture.