Choose 20 games that have had a big impact on you. One game per day, for 20 days. No explanations, no ratings, no particular order. #GameChallenge (6/20)
Wargames (colecovision)
Wargames (colecovision)
Lunduke does good work sometimes, but you can also tell he sometimes is totally full of shit.
It's like... great dude, you found some woke accounts on the fediverse. Shame you're missing the best part.
It's like... great dude, you found some woke accounts on the fediverse. Shame you're missing the best part.
Especially for stuff like computers, most people can actually keep their computers around and functional for much longer than they think. I'm writing this using a laptop with a 10 year old processor that's perfectly serviceable and with the 10 year old graphics chip it's even capable of low-end gaming. I'm posting this on a social media website hosted on a server with an even older processor.
You never know what the future brings, but it isn't like technology is speeding up (moore's law has been dead for a long time now). It's highly likely both machines if they're still maintained and therefore operational will be servicable another 10 years from now. Not for doing the latest and greatest big thing, but a core 2 duo from 18 years ago is still capable of doing basic tasks such as word processing, web browsing, and it seems unlikely that it'll change.
You never know what the future brings, but it isn't like technology is speeding up (moore's law has been dead for a long time now). It's highly likely both machines if they're still maintained and therefore operational will be servicable another 10 years from now. Not for doing the latest and greatest big thing, but a core 2 duo from 18 years ago is still capable of doing basic tasks such as word processing, web browsing, and it seems unlikely that it'll change.
I like this idea tbh.
It's like, people look at landfills and see a problem of all that garbage, but you can also think of it as this spot with all this reusable stuff or recyclable material. People talk about the great plastic patch in the ocean, but that's potentially material that could be extracted from that location and we've got a spot the size of texas we can use to get all kinds of interesting material for many things.
The big thing that the Standard Oil company did that most companies didn't at the time is they had a lot of byproducts of kerosene production (the thing most people wanted to replace whale oil). Instead of throwing it out (or likely just burning it off) like many oil companies did, they found uses for the different distillates of crude oil that weren't prime kerosene. That way you got gasoline, diesel, bunker fuel, plastics, all from the same feedstock you previously only got kerosene from.
People might think that's a bad example because fossil fuels destroy the environment through climate change, but given that the byproducts were to be disposed of likely by burning without doing anything productive with it, you're getting a lot more useful energy out of one unit of crude oil, making things much more efficient. In the same way, we could be looking at society's byproducts or polluting elements and asking "Ok, this is bad, but can we turn this negative into a positive by taking this thing we don't want and turning it into something we do want?"
It's like, people look at landfills and see a problem of all that garbage, but you can also think of it as this spot with all this reusable stuff or recyclable material. People talk about the great plastic patch in the ocean, but that's potentially material that could be extracted from that location and we've got a spot the size of texas we can use to get all kinds of interesting material for many things.
The big thing that the Standard Oil company did that most companies didn't at the time is they had a lot of byproducts of kerosene production (the thing most people wanted to replace whale oil). Instead of throwing it out (or likely just burning it off) like many oil companies did, they found uses for the different distillates of crude oil that weren't prime kerosene. That way you got gasoline, diesel, bunker fuel, plastics, all from the same feedstock you previously only got kerosene from.
People might think that's a bad example because fossil fuels destroy the environment through climate change, but given that the byproducts were to be disposed of likely by burning without doing anything productive with it, you're getting a lot more useful energy out of one unit of crude oil, making things much more efficient. In the same way, we could be looking at society's byproducts or polluting elements and asking "Ok, this is bad, but can we turn this negative into a positive by taking this thing we don't want and turning it into something we do want?"
I still don't understand why they have a person doing sign language on TV next to government officials.
Closed captioning is a thing, and it's useful for people who don't know asl... So why take screen real estate doing this thing when they could just be showing closed captioning?
Closed captioning is a thing, and it's useful for people who don't know asl... So why take screen real estate doing this thing when they could just be showing closed captioning?
Sometimes I see stuff on the fediverse that surprises even me, such as a glowing anime recommendation from a large language model pretending to be Donald Trump.
Any other recommendations to make anime great again?
Any other recommendations to make anime great again?
If you look in a microscope, everything is moving around even when everything is still. The warmer it gets, and the smaller the particles get, the more they move.
This is called Brownian motion, and it is explained by matter being made of particles that push against everything and when the matter is small enough the energy of individual particles is enough to jostle things around. It isn't the only proof, but it's good evidence that matter is made of molecules, and that heat is related to the movement of those particles.
It was Albert Einstein who described Brownian motion mathematically which was one of the major things which helped tip the consensus of scientists towards atomic theory rather than something else.
(I know, you weren't asking but I thought Brownian motion is pretty cool so I decided to share anyway)
This is called Brownian motion, and it is explained by matter being made of particles that push against everything and when the matter is small enough the energy of individual particles is enough to jostle things around. It isn't the only proof, but it's good evidence that matter is made of molecules, and that heat is related to the movement of those particles.
It was Albert Einstein who described Brownian motion mathematically which was one of the major things which helped tip the consensus of scientists towards atomic theory rather than something else.
(I know, you weren't asking but I thought Brownian motion is pretty cool so I decided to share anyway)
AI performed, I wrote the lyrics. Just having fun with some tools lol
Pretty neat it can make crappy rhymes sound ok.
Pretty neat it can make crappy rhymes sound ok.
It makes people feel good until they find someone who is just objectively better than them by every measure.
I've met people who are better than me on every measure that I think I'm pretty good in, and if people are all equal then that means I'm just a failure who didn't work hard enough. Some people are just better. Sucks, but it's better to think some people are just more naturally gifted than to think you suffer from some personal failing that makes you fail that hard against someone who is by all measures your equal.
But kids don't realize that yet, or at least they pretend they don't.
I've met people who are better than me on every measure that I think I'm pretty good in, and if people are all equal then that means I'm just a failure who didn't work hard enough. Some people are just better. Sucks, but it's better to think some people are just more naturally gifted than to think you suffer from some personal failing that makes you fail that hard against someone who is by all measures your equal.
But kids don't realize that yet, or at least they pretend they don't.
@amerika
One thing I think you're mistaken on (and you might be surprised of all the things but I don't really want to change your mind on big things we don't agree on since I want to see your point of view on the big stuff) is that not every adaptive outcome is genetic or even epigenetic. Our bodies are adaptive. If you take identical twins, and have one work out with weights every day, and have the other one sit on a chair watching TV every day, the one who lifts weights will be significantly stronger than the one who did not.
This is relevant to your example of eyesight. In China, people who live in the cities and are thus impacted by the strict exam requirements (and therefore spend all day every day in their childhood looking at something 2 feet from their face studying) are overwhelmingly nearsighted (If I recall it's like 80%), but people who are the same genetic stock in the countryside who don't sit in class all day staring at something right in front of them aren't nearsighted, and also importantly, Chinese families who move to the west don't end up with the overwhelming nearsightedness for kids born in the west. Essentially, you have people with adaptable eyes and those eyes adapt to studying. It happens a lot sooner than genetic evolution, essentially one childhood and you've got nearsightedness.
Over dozens of generations you could still have a peacock effect and genetic disposition towards that adaption may end up resulting in damage to the genepool if poorly designed meritocracy walks people towards a certain thing, but a lot of really bad things happen on a shorter timeframes than the fundamental make-up of our cells.
One of the problems with meritocracy is when the merit being judged for isn't good. If you select for passing a certain test then yes, the meritocracy will damage people over time. On the other hand, if you select for a bunch of different kinds of merit what you have is real life and you'll have the best people succeeding naturally.
The ultimate question ought to be "Are you meritorious as in are you useful? Are you able to support yourself, then your family, then your community, then your nation?" If so, then you are of merit and will reach the highest levels of power and responsibility. Otherwise you get less power and responsibility.
One thing I think you're mistaken on (and you might be surprised of all the things but I don't really want to change your mind on big things we don't agree on since I want to see your point of view on the big stuff) is that not every adaptive outcome is genetic or even epigenetic. Our bodies are adaptive. If you take identical twins, and have one work out with weights every day, and have the other one sit on a chair watching TV every day, the one who lifts weights will be significantly stronger than the one who did not.
This is relevant to your example of eyesight. In China, people who live in the cities and are thus impacted by the strict exam requirements (and therefore spend all day every day in their childhood looking at something 2 feet from their face studying) are overwhelmingly nearsighted (If I recall it's like 80%), but people who are the same genetic stock in the countryside who don't sit in class all day staring at something right in front of them aren't nearsighted, and also importantly, Chinese families who move to the west don't end up with the overwhelming nearsightedness for kids born in the west. Essentially, you have people with adaptable eyes and those eyes adapt to studying. It happens a lot sooner than genetic evolution, essentially one childhood and you've got nearsightedness.
Over dozens of generations you could still have a peacock effect and genetic disposition towards that adaption may end up resulting in damage to the genepool if poorly designed meritocracy walks people towards a certain thing, but a lot of really bad things happen on a shorter timeframes than the fundamental make-up of our cells.
One of the problems with meritocracy is when the merit being judged for isn't good. If you select for passing a certain test then yes, the meritocracy will damage people over time. On the other hand, if you select for a bunch of different kinds of merit what you have is real life and you'll have the best people succeeding naturally.
The ultimate question ought to be "Are you meritorious as in are you useful? Are you able to support yourself, then your family, then your community, then your nation?" If so, then you are of merit and will reach the highest levels of power and responsibility. Otherwise you get less power and responsibility.
"Source port" refers to an open source replacement for a proprietary engine. For example, you can download replacements for the doom engine, the quake engine, and the duke nukem 3d have many open source engine replacements that let you run the games on different operating systems and often add new features.
For Doom and Duke 3d for example, it adds 3d accelerator support and all the features that come from that. There's raytracing versions of doom, quake, and quake 2 that never would have been imagined back when these games came out, and versions compiled for hardware that never existed while these games were under active development. I've got some Chinese handhelds that have a whole library of games compiled from source ports, so you can have a native port of a bunch of games.
For Doom and Duke 3d for example, it adds 3d accelerator support and all the features that come from that. There's raytracing versions of doom, quake, and quake 2 that never would have been imagined back when these games came out, and versions compiled for hardware that never existed while these games were under active development. I've got some Chinese handhelds that have a whole library of games compiled from source ports, so you can have a native port of a bunch of games.