Zodiac signs are literally constellations… Which are quite real.
Astrology is also real, in the fact that it’s a uselessly real thing. Women love it though. Same with tarot. All you do is make plausible sounding shit up and then they placebo themselves into happiness or nocebo into a sour mood.
Took me 2 hours to find out why the final output of a neural network was a bunch of NaN. This is always very annoying but I can’t really complain, it make sense. Just sucks.
That could be a nice way. Sadly it was in a C++ code base (using tensorflow). Therefore no such nice things (would be slow too). I skill-issued myself thinking a struct would be 0 -initialized but MyStruct input; would not while MyStruct input {}; will (that was the fix). Long story.
If you use the GNU libc the feenableexcept function, which you can use to enable certain floating point exceptions, could be useful to catch unexpected/unwanted NaNs
Because greedy, selfish assholes are very, very good at abusing and ruining a society for their own benefit. Keeping them out of the way and from making trouble is the only way the kind of society OP posted about would have any chance to survive long-term.
We really need to find a way to do that. Maybe entice them away with a kingship on Mars, or something?
I think the solution is for all the non assholes to work together to stamp out the assholes and remove them from having power. Incredibly difficult, but not impossible. It’s the same class war that’s been waged by the wealthy for decades. Theyve never stopped attacking, we just suck at working together and have allowed them to gain waaaay too much ground.
They’re always going to be on the bus, but we can at least push them to the back where they can’t fuck with where we want to go.
The trick is to do the very minimum to help the lower class, get them to hate each other, and hate immigrants… but for some reason, not pay attention to the billionaires hiding behind the curtain.
Sounds like the tin box is a solution for an individual looking for housing, worth $20,000 in the current environment. Nobody thinks this is a solution to the entire housing crisis.
It’s not a solution tho. Shipping containers are designed to hold freight not people.
The walls are thin steel bakes/freezes with temperature, adding insulation just takes away more of the already thin container width
Flat roof means rain, leaves, snow, etc just piles up and creates rust
Shipping containers are valuable for transport - the real reason you see these and the tiny houses on wheels is because they conveniently ignore land needs for the house to actually sit on
Just to add, as long as the roofs aren’t damaged they are curved enough so rain drips off.
And while steel isn’t a good insulator it’s not like they insulate any less than other thin materials. But yeah they are too narrow to make the ideal tiny house.
They are also way too heavy and sturdy, you don’t need your tiny house to be able to be able to hold like 100 tonnes on the roof (posts) or 40 tones on the floor.
That’s kind of a scary thought, that I think humanity is about to try out next. As in, who needs the humans anymore, when robots will do the same tasks with far less effort?:-|
That’s the secret sign that gives you the power of chakra energy transmutation. Richie Blackmore of Deep Purple used this power to become a space trucker.
The actual signs exist (get yourself a planisphere or a stargazing app, find some dark skies, and discover them for yourself!), it’s just all the magic personality nonsense associated with them is bullshit.
It makes me feel really dumb when I watch this stuff. The entire time I try to be open minded. I’m left being impressed with the individuals ability to research and articulate an obviously very thoroughly studied topic. They are obviously intelligent, I guess more so than I can relate, because all I am left with from the content is how pointless of a topic it is. No kidding words that we created are a method of communicating within the environment we exist. It’s like the stupid boat example, most generally when referring to the boat people are referring to the one registered, just as he said in the video. The others made from the scraps are boats made from the removed components of that registered vessel. None of this stuff seems complicated to me. He and others even seem aware of the pointless ridiculousness of it when he discusses the eyelash in the fridge example. So I’m left feeling that I’m obviously too stupid to understand the value, or objective, in such a pointless pursuit where everyone already recognizes conditions to words apply to communication while somehow finding value in beating the horse to death and picking it to death, for what I imagine is some goal I just can’t understand.
It’s one thing to say that constellations of stars don’t exist. It’s another thing to say that the constellation “Leo” doesn’t exist because it isn’t a lion and our perception of the spatial relationship of those stars has nothing to do with lions, or with mystical astrological significance.
Those stars are present in space in a certain way. And we can perceive them in our sky in a certain way. But whether those stars are “connected” in any meaningful way, or whether they contain any inherent Lion relevance is purely a creation of human imagination derived from real observable objective phenomena. We could just as easily have said that Leo was Orion, and Orion was Leo, and have been equally correct. It’s subjective. Which doesn’t mean it’s meaningless for us, otherwise art would be meaningless. But it does mean that it isn’t “real” in the same way that gravity or the sun are real. Anything whose continued existence is conditioned on belief isn’t “real” in an objective sense.
Belief can certainly will unreal things into meaningful reality though. But, absent that belief, those things will not exist.
Really this is a discussion centered around the inadequacy of the English word “real.” Perhaps other languages have specific words that would more clearly demonstrate this distinction. Because clearly gravity and Pisces are not both “real” in the same way. The former is objectively real and the latter is subjectively real. And we’re talking past each other by not simply having seperate words that distinguish between those concepts
Except there really isn’t anything more “objective” about all the stars in a direction vs all the hydrogen lumped together in a hot spot. I agree that the dense place fusion is happening is far more interesting and important than a direction of sky that got named after a pretty picture someone imagined a long time ago. That’s a purely subjective distinction though. That direction from Earth, and everything in it, exists without us just as much as a star does. Words just describe the groupings we think are interesting enough to want to communicate about regularly. Sometimes other people like to talk about things we think are silly. That doesn’t make us more “objective” though.
Smiley faces don’t exist, they’re just a random collection of polygons (that are interpreted by the human brain as being analogous to a specific thing and thus have meaning through comparison…)
No it’s like saying a person-shaped cloud doesn’t exist.
To describe it as person-shaped is subjective and another viewer may describe the same cloud as butterfly-shaped. Because it’s a subjective interpretation of a static objective object. Like abstract art.
People/animals exist and are “real” in that all of us have agency and a sense of self that is not conditionally dependent on the identical perception of others.
A person-shaped cloud is only “person-shaped” if viewers claim it is. An arrangement of viewable disparate stars is only “Orion” because the Greeks, and now us, decided it was. But I am me and you are you regardless of what anyone else thinks, and always will be.
We aren’t a collection of particles, we are more than the sum of our parts. We have agency and a mind and self-identity. A cloud or a star constellation has none of those things. They are inanimate unfeeling objects that only gain meaning, (astrological, imaginative, or otherwise) when humans/sentient beings ascribe that meaning to them. Human beings, and all living things, have inherent meaning because of their sentience and inherent uniqueness. Which is why genocide is a greater loss than the destruction of a rock - it’s the permanent death of unique living beings.
lemmy.ml
Newest