There’s peltier devices, too, which use heat traveling via different metals and maybe some sort of sorcery to generate a voltage.

Also teslacoils use a different mechanism (friction I believe), though that’s a static voltage.

In theory, you could translate a magnet through a coil instead of just rotating it to produce a current. Lol spinning a ring magnet through a rounded coil could be a different way of using spinning magnets (assuming it isn’t already done).

Someone should have stuck one of those shot pouring nozzles in there, would have been pretty funny.

“Follow that cab!”

Yeah, that’s the frustrating part of the sex worker morality debate. While it can be argued that a decent portion of sex workers don’t really want to be doing it, their motivation is the same as the rest of us and sex work is the best option they see for surviving, either because they genuinely like it better than other options or because they don’t see other options (though the ones who are forced into it are a different story, though the laws against sex work make things even harder for them rather than protecting them).

Yeah, some OF models clearly automate posting ad videos because there will be a video that has a caption and tags that have nothing to do with the content. Probably AI-based, though it might even just be a simple script that randomly picks from a list of captions and tags.

Makes me wonder if that’s even effective. Like are the thirst traps there because the women desperately want to gain traction and think that’s how, or are they there because it is an effective way of gaining traction? Because for me personally, it’s more of a turn off or at best neutral if I’m really attracted to her.

IMO it’s more about the vibe than whether porn is their main source of income.

Is she really horny or just acting?

If she’s really horny, then it just comes down to whether or not I find her physically attractive, which is partially based on looks and partially based on how she physically displays her personality.

If she isn’t really horny, someone acting like they are horny when they aren’t is personally a turn off. Things like moaning as if she’s about to orgasm while just giving a blowjob, random ahego face, thirst trap captions… Enough of those and it doesn’t matter how hot I find her otherwise.

Professional porn tends to be more of the latter. Once the novelty wears off and it goes from “I’m getting paid to fuck!” to “I just gotta have sex to get paid”, it loses that sense of genuineness.

Greatest and silent generations laughing their asses off at the boomers taking all the heat for the state of the world. Previous generations would also be laughing if they weren’t dead.

Restaurants that properly handle noise are awesome. Busy ones can get loud even without music, but if they take steps to address sound reverberation, it can make a huge difference.

Some places are so loud, employees should be required to wear hearing protection.

They don’t really understand how they work and get misled by how AI can get to a correct solution (or correct looking one).

Like I was in a meeting where people were presenting their Claude skills (which are just text files describing processes that it can add to the context) and one manager mentioned doing regression testing on added skills to make sure they don’t break the functionality of existing ones. From my pov, he was both on the right track but also missing the point entirely because they won’t be able to consistently pass regression tests even without new skills. Because something being in the context window only has a chance of affecting the output. If the code being modified has comments that look like instructions, they might override the actual instructions.

Or it might try solving non-existent problems for you. Like a skill I was “developing” for making a particular modification to tests basically just outright said “make a test that inherits from the target test and add these parameters”. Dead simple step. First test I use to test it on, I see it’s missing one of the arguments. I mention it and the AI says that because of the start of the name being “<name of section>” and the test didn’t target that section, it decided that the argument wasn’t necessary, so I had to add instructions to not just add that argument but to not decdide to just leave it out for arbitrary reasons.

I can’t say for sure any of the AI tasks I’ve done saved any time by being AI. But the mental load is lower and they really want us using AI, so I’ll keep doing it, but the unreliability is going to cause more problems than it solves in the long run IMO.

I guess the joke is that it wasn’t an ambiguous expression in the first place and that pedmas/bedmas wasn’t the issue, or rather using just it here is the problem?

When you have multiplication expressed as numbers joined without a symbol, that takes precedence at the current layer, where layers are created using brackets, fraction symbols, superscript exponents and concatenated multiplies.

I’m not sure this resolves all ambiguity, but it simplifies the rule to just doing multiplication/division before addition/subtraction. It seems simple enough in my mind, so I’d need to see a counter example if it does break down.

Though I hate how mainstream math problems/puzzles always end up being an order of operations problem, which I’d argue isn’t even math but more of a metamath thing. If you’re using math to solve a real problem, the correct order of operations will be determined by logic, not any conventions.

Like if it takes you 5 seconds to get in your car and 12 seconds per km traveled, and 5 seconds to get out of your car, if you multiply the 10 seconds to get in or out by the distance, you’ll have a wrong answer. It’ll always be distance traveled in km times 12 seconds/km plus the 10 seconds, and the math works on the units as well as the numbers to show you did it in a way that makes sense.

How does being grumpy about something help? It’s just an emotional state, not a solution.

I think he’s just backup for the triangle-standers there to support Grant and Sattler, but you can see all 6 of them standing in perfect form, so the poor kid probably just got bored waiting for one of them to go to the bathroom. He was supposed to have tarp ready in case of a random windstorm or helicopter, but that almost never happens so instead he was just daydreaming about giant chickens.

And there’s a noticeable drop in quality. Not to the point that I’d say they aren’t worth getting, just noticeable. I’d say they are something like 50% the price for 75% the quality.

And to be more specific, I’m talking about a breadth of quality issues, from piece durability, to how consistent the fit is, to how easy the combination steps are structurally (as in some steps from the knockoffs require figuring out where you need to hold the parts for support or where to apply force to avoid collapsing another part of it as you build it up).

Lego has it down to a science and there’s more to it than just the physical shape (which itself is easier said than done and requires a certain level of precision).

Oh yeah, don’t get me wrong, consciousness is probably the least explainable thing whose existence I’m aware of. But the gap in our knowledge doesn’t automatically mean it’s something that exists outside of the rest of the laws of physics. To scientifically show something is true, you need to disprove the other possible explanations (which is impossible because there’s always other possible explanations).

The double slit experiment does not prove consciousness is a special case in how the laws of physics works. There’s actually two results in it: how the slits interact with the particle/wave and how the particle/wave interacts with the photo-sensitive plate. We always observe the plate but only sometimes try to observe which slit(s) it travels through. The variations I mentioned above were ways to separate the conscious observer running the experiment from the non-conscious “ovserver” which is the sensor.

If it’s happening because of the consciousness being involved, then the sensor measuring but never recording shouldn’t affect the outcome and you should get a wave pattern. Similar for it it is possible to view the results but the observer decides not to, no matter the outcome. But then once they discard that conviction, then either it pops over to the particle result (if conscious observation means it has to act like a particle) or stays as a wave pattern but now you’ve been able to do what has never been done and measure which slits it traveled through and when to make that pattern. These variations are so obvious that they had to have been done, and since I’m not aware of conscious observation being proven to affect the outcome (as opposed to all observations require interaction, which can affect the outcome, no consciousness required), I assume they just got the particle result as long as the sensor was doing anything at all.

That one possibility is powerful, that deciding to do something can change how something behaves. It could be used for FTL communication and arbitrary prediction of the future, which makes me inclined to believe that it doesn’t work that way.

All that said, I do agree that it could be the case that consciousness is as important to the laws of physics as all the other things but confounds every attempt to measure it. I’d love to believe that, even, and a part of me does. But without anything definitive, the other part of me will hold on to the thought that it’s just wishful thinking.

That’s also part of the reason I pushed back. I’d love for someone to “well, actually” and prove something about consciousness or even just show me a new argument, so I’ll bring up the parts that make me skeptical or explain the way I see it. I want to believe.

One of the claims of the more psuedoscience “quantum mechanics” is that the future can affect the past. So the intent to check the data if there is a wave pattern would cause there to not be a wave pattern on its own, otherwise there would be a contradiction.

But, as the other commenter mentioned, it’s a moot point because it’s the sensor is the “observer”, and it’s not “being observed” that affects the outcome, but “interacting with the wave/particle to generate the data that may or may not be observed by a conscious”.

The profoundness of this, if it were the case, would be to imply that there’s something special, different about consciousness vs all the other non-conscious interactions out there, that this existence is for us rather than us just being here in this existence. But quantum mechanics doesn’t actually say anything about consciousness, at least not at this point, and probably not any time soon because it isn’t even really looking at that problem.

The wave pattern is on the photo plate, the data that never gets looked at is from a sensor on one or both slits that measures whether the projectile passed through that slit.

Yeah, I kinda wish the site generated a hash or something because I’ve got an extension that fakes the canvas results, but the site says those identifiers are unique for me… But are they the same unique (which indicates the extension isn’t doing anything) or different each time (which might even make the others less useful if it aggregates everything?

I did notice earlier today that the YouTube recommendations were all actually related to the video I was currently watching instead of it trying to get me to go down a rabbit hole I’ve already been down even logged out, like it does on my desktop where I haven’t installed that extension.

I like that they covered all the possibilities for the do not track flag, as I saw it as useless from the very start, as by then I realized the honour system didn’t mean shit and it would just be another piece of data.

Yeah, the :P version includes some mischievousness that the icons don’t capture. It’s like banter vs goofing around. They are similar but not quite the same, so the icons miss the mark.

For me, it kinda personifies the whole corporate approach to existence, where their understanding is close but also misses the point in very fundamental ways. Like a charicature of itself.

Does the result of the experiment change if there’s a sensor active that records data to a hard drive that no one ever looks at and it just gets deleted? Does the result change again if someone decides that if they get a wave pattern, they will interrupt the deletion process and look at the data?