robryk @robryk@qoto.org
I enjoy things around information theory (and data compression), complexity theory (and cryptography), read hard scifi, currently work on weird ML (we'll see how it goes), am somewhat literal minded and have approximate knowledge of random things. I like when statements have truth values, and when things can be described simply (which is not exactly the same as shortly) and yet have interesting properties.
I live in the largest city of Switzerland (and yet have cow and sheep pastures and a swimmable lake within a few hundred meters of my place :)). I speak Polish, English, German, and can understand simple Swiss German and French.
If in doubt, please err on the side of being direct with me. I very much appreciate when people tell me that I'm being inaccurate. I think that satisfying people's curiosity is the most important thing I could be doing (and usually enjoy doing it). I am normally terse in my writing and would appreciate requests to verbosify.
I appreciate it if my grammar or style is corrected (in any of the languages I use here).
Joined Nov 2020
But then what would you use as evidence of lack of intent in people who you wouldn't expect to blab so much?
I now started to wonder if the spring bathroom scales exhibit some sort of drift when you step on and off them multiple times in quick succession (e.g. due to heating).
What do you mean by demonstrated intent? (I assume something like observed effects compared to your estimation of other effects he could have achieved.)
I don't know how to divine intent of people I can't talk with (or that talk in a way I find sufficiently alien). How would you do that?
Hm~ I'm curious what you'd think about the pilots from that sketch then (I understand that it's sufficiently out-of-context that it might be hard to extrapolate there or back, but I'm still curious).
Me :)
I've had people tell me that there are multiple angles to approach something or something to a similar effect when talking about statements that are either literally contradictory or that become contradictory if one tries to make them precise in the obvious way. The principle you're describing can be misapplied in that way.
Hm~ I've observed enough cases of people not caring that two (or more) statements they profess are literally contradictory that I tend to emphasize the nearly opposite statement: if two things are actually contradictory (which they often aren't even if at first glance they appear to be) then they can't be both true. I think that emphasizing that is actually productive, because it (at least sometimes) focuses the discussion on figuring out what are the conditions under which both can be true.
(That said, the discussions I've been in the vicinity of over the past ~2years have gotten worse over time, so I might be acquiring bad calibrations about what works. But again, I've had this approach for way longer than 2y.)
Or eschew the notion of purpose: there are only outcomes. The only things that might have purpose are actions of individuals one can reason with.
IIUC the way it works is that someone orders the thing from themselves (well, using two different identities) and using your address as delivery address. Then they can review their own product (and can choose not to initiate a return).
You might enjoy https://yewtu.be/watch?v=XfLdFZ4my9g and it's IMO somewhat relevant ~here: it demonstrates that literal contents of speech is not what is communicated. Sadly this means that unless one assumes good faith of the speaker, one can't really judge what they want to convey other than by looking at what effect it has, lest the estimate be ~easily manipulatable :(
@niconiconi
Which mental model? Lumped components, or water flow?
Hm~ this seems weird: are the edges resistors? If so, what provides the electromotive force?
Ah, you mean the generic "get this from whenever" being a possible stable solution in the ~current world?
I guess I agree, but I still think that it's overly optimistic to say that fedi is of the same enough category to predict things for it from this: if we were to look a small number of decades in the past, the magazine distribution system via stores/kiosks (as opposed to only via a post subscription) was very popular and worked well, but I struggle to remember any working physical bulletin board systems from my childhood.
I realized how large a success of engineering/standardization/design patterns it is that lumped circuit model is usable for typical circuits only after I played with water-based fluidics (where I would consistently make choices that caused my devices to deviate greatly from models with similar assumptions).
To be fair, the situation is somewhat different: in podcasts the podcast publishers are more knowledgeable about the infrastructure they use, and often have enough slack to explicitly deal with various avenues of delivery (e.g. register it in iTunes). Here, the only party that would normally have similar amount of knowledge and maybe slack are instance admins, but (a) they are more hidden participants (b) they are likely to have negative slack due to instanceization of moderation duties.
> The use of the system resembled its name, which had been intended to be spurious.
The version Alaskan had is the one that's harder to reconfigure: another version offered by Boeing that's easier to reconfigure is to leave most of the door hardware intact, but install a blank piece of wall inside instead of the interior of the door. (Source: YT video nw4eQGAmXQ0)
@maddiefuzz Are these photos also taken from different distances?
@pitrh it also does the exact opposite: a response to a claim that it's precious answer was wrong is ~always to agree with you
Air accidents
That plane had versions with different numbers of seats. IIUC more populated versions need more than standard front, overwing, and back exits, so they have additional exits behind wings. For lower population versions they have multiple options there: an exit, more temporary way to blank it off, and a less temporary way to blank it off. I guess that the reason not to have a nonrequired exit is to simplify maintenance and operations (one pair of slides less).
I enjoy things around information theory (and data compression), complexity theory (and cryptography), read hard scifi, currently work on weird ML (we'll see how it goes), am somewhat literal minded and have approximate knowledge of random things. I like when statements have truth values, and when things can be described simply (which is not exactly the same as shortly) and yet have interesting properties.
I live in the largest city of Switzerland (and yet have cow and sheep pastures and a swimmable lake within a few hundred meters of my place :)). I speak Polish, English, German, and can understand simple Swiss German and French.
If in doubt, please err on the side of being direct with me. I very much appreciate when people tell me that I'm being inaccurate. I think that satisfying people's curiosity is the most important thing I could be doing (and usually enjoy doing it). I am normally terse in my writing and would appreciate requests to verbosify.
I appreciate it if my grammar or style is corrected (in any of the languages I use here).
Joined Nov 2020
