Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)S

squaresinger

@ squaresinger @lemmy.world

Posts
6
Comments
552
Joined
8 mo. ago

  • Street racers are not criminals

    Jump

  • "My hobby is breaking and entering. I don't do it for the money, I do it for the thrill. I don't intend to hurt anyone, but I carry a gun. You know, for safety. Sometimes someone dies, but that's just an accident. Most break-ins go just fine. I only kill people maybe one out of 100 times. It's totally harmless fun."

  • Doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results is not the definition of insanity. It's the definition of practice.

    Jump

  • All of your examples assume that the phrase “the same thing” is taken to be figuratively. That there is some element of “but not exactly the same” attached to the each example.

    Show me a single thing, just one single thing that can be repeated absolutely identical, without the "but not exactly the same" attached to it in the real world.

    Just one.

    Throw a ball twice, so that it hits the same spot with sub-nanometer accuracy. Drop a ball twice in exactly the identical way.

    If that's not possible, then it's not possible to do the same exact thing twice.

    If that's your premise for the quote, then it becomes "Doing something impossible is the definition of insanity".

    The whole quote just disappears into thin air, since it loses all it's meaning.

    Hence the "but not exactly the same" is necessary for the quote to even exist.

    That's why "doing the same way" never means to do something absolutely identical, because that definition is impossible to ever fulfil. And that's why that definition of "the same" isn't slang but literally in the Cambridge Dictionary

    Here are the examples given there:

    My twin sister and I have the same nose.

    Both noses are identical, down to the atom. Right?

    She was wearing exactly the same dress as I was.

    Not a single thread is different on the dresses. Down to the atom identical. Cannot be distinguished. Luckily, both of the wearers seem to be of the exact same size as well, right?

    Hilary's the same age as me.

    Born in the same nanosecond.

    She brought up her children in just (= exactly) the same way her mother did.

    Not once did she say a different word than her mother said. The education was perfectly memorized and executed absolutely exactly the same way without a single difference. Every word timed to the same millisecond.

    Literally exactly the same does not exist outside of mathematics.

  • Doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results is not the definition of insanity. It's the definition of practice.

    Jump

  • So your point was that your argument was just hyperbole and thus doesn't make sense?

    Ok, we can go with that.

  • Doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results is not the definition of insanity. It's the definition of practice.

    Jump

  • There's a subtile difference in meaning between "proven" and "prove", even though they have the same root.

    "Proven" can mean that there's proof for something, but it can also mean "established", "tested", "reliable" or "trustworthy".

    You know, as in "time-proven" or "battle-proven".

    And quantum mechanics totally fits that description. Sure, there's no mathematical proof for anything outside of maths, but quantum mechanics has proven itself many times over.

    (Btw., outside of maths, the word "proof" also means something different than in maths. The word "proof" is also much older than its usage in maths. "Proof" in the context of maths is just as much domain lingo as "daemon" is in the context of Linux. It has its own distinct meaning in the context of mathematics and doesn't mean the same thing outside of that domain.

    Same as you don't need an exorcist to get your Linux daemons in line.)

  • Superhero stories have become less about saving people and more about fighting villains.

    Jump

  • If you want to look it up, check out e.g. Baron Zemo or Ultron.

  • PR: Linux.exe

    Jump

  • To be fair again, OOP would probably also have issues with running Linux.exe.

    The release page would probably not helped them much.

  • PR: Linux.exe

    Jump

  • That's the adult-only version.

  • Superhero stories have become less about saving people and more about fighting villains.

    Jump

  • There's now story points about villains created by the superheroes who's entire mission is to kill the superheroes in revenge.

  • The Programmer Compass

    Jump

  • A lot of the systems are quite stabilized. No need for a new OS, a new browser, a new language.

    Even if the old stuff isn't perfectly optimal, having to setup a fully-new ecosystem is so incredibly costly that it's just not worth it.

    That's why you see new developments (e.g. Typescript or Kotlin) piggyback on older ecosystems (e.g. JavaScript or Java compatibility).

    Typescript could have been better if it was a completely fresh development without being encumbered by the madness that is JavaScript. But without JavaScript compatibility and thus acces to the JS ecosystem, nobody would have switched to TS.

    All these systems heavily benefit from network effects, which makes it hard to impossible for completely new systems to emerge.

    This is doubly strong for consumer-facing software. Linux only became a viable mainstream option due to Wine/Proton/... allowing users to easily run Windows programs. Without Windows compatibility, Linux would still be at <1% desktop market share.

    It's also the same reason why everyone's making chromium-based browsers: Because that way they all work the same.

    Disruptive change happens when you get a completely fresh use case. Microsoft completely destroyed the likes of Commodore and IBM when home computers became something that everyone had in their homes.

    Smartphones becoming mainstream allowed Google and Apple, who were both completely new to the mobile OS business, to win against established mobile OS companies, because nothing was entrenched in the late 2000s mobile OS landscape.

    OpenAI, Anthropic, Midjourney and so on are wiping the floor with established software powerhouses in the AI space.

    But after the disruption follows stabilization. A product that has reached market saturation will only be replaced by incremental, compatible improvements.

  • Removed

    How do you secure your home lab? Like, physically? From thieves?

    Jump

  • No need to worry about thieves. They mostly don't even steal laptops of TVs. It's just not worth the work and the risk.

    Yes need to worry about floods or your house burning down. That's the real way to lose a home server.

  • Doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results is not the definition of insanity. It's the definition of practice.

    Jump

  • "I'm going to get a drink." - "I am doing the same."

    Will the second person immitate every movement the first one makes? Will the second person use the exact same words and intonation to order a drink? Will the second person order exactly the same drink?

    Or will both people make their way to the bar however they like, and then each use their own words to order any drink they happen to want and "doing the same" just means that they will each end up with a drink in their hands?

  • Doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results is not the definition of insanity. It's the definition of practice.

    Jump

  • "That's exactly how to do that!" - Gandalf

  • Doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results is not the definition of insanity. It's the definition of practice.

    Jump

  • Now we are getting to the point: You are saying that an action doesn't have to be identical to be the same. There can be variance.

    All actions have variance, but the level of accuracy is only relevant to the prescribed goal. In the example of a basketball, the ball only needs to enter the top of the hoop from a given range of angles, at a range of speeds. As long as you are within this tolerance you will achieve the goal of making a basket. The whole concept of the game relies on this repeatability.

    Now, let's say this is the case. Look at a random professional basketball game. If it's as repeatable as you say and the whole concept of the game relies on this repeatability (so without that repeatability there is no game of basketball), then that means every single shot will go into the basket. Otherwise it's not as repeatable as you claim. Is that true?

    If this repeatability is so simple and easy to make, why would anyone need to practice for it? Do you think that pro basketball players just show up for the games and never practice?

    repeating your position through a series of pedantic semantics, goal post shifting or false premises is going to change the outcome of this argument

    Now the cool and fancy but inapplicable terms arrive, when the real arguments disappear.

    If you want to, I can supply some other non-fitting terms as well: Selection bias, survivorship bias, stockholm syndrome, strawman argument. Happy now? Throwing non-fitting fallacy names out doesn't make you look smarter.

  • Doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results is not the definition of insanity. It's the definition of practice.

    Jump

  • There's a saying in German: "Nicht alles was hinkt ist ein Vergleich".

    Roughly translated: "Not everything which is flawed is an analogy."

    People do say "I'm going to do the same" when doing something that has the same kind of outcome without being an identical copy of an action.

    People do not use a bat (animal) as a replacement for a bat (sports equipment) because usually people understand the concept of homonyms.

    That's really not the comeback that you think it is.

  • Doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results is not the definition of insanity. It's the definition of practice.

    Jump

  • Same is not identical.

    "I am going to get a drink." - "I'm gonna do the same."

    Will the second person now do identical movements to the first one? Will the second person use identical words to order an identical drink?

    Or will both of them walk up to the bar and each of them will get some drink they like?

    "I'm going to practice golf this weekend." - "Yeah, I'm going to do the same."

    Will the second person immitate every movement of the first one? Or are both of them just going to practice golf, one of them maybe on a golf course and the other one on a drive range?

  • Doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results is not the definition of insanity. It's the definition of practice.

    Jump

  • Ok, let's try this a different way:

    "I'm gonna get a drink." - "I'm gonna do the same."

    Is the second person going to immitate every single motion of the first person?

    Or will the second person just also get a drink, maybe not even the same drink?

  • Doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results is not the definition of insanity. It's the definition of practice.

    Jump

  • How do you get proficient at anything? Practice it well past the first 10 minutes where you have the highest returns.

  • There is a limit how much power the pedal assist of an e-Bike is allowed to provide. There is no limit though on how strong the exoskeletton is that you use on a regular bike.

    Jump

  • Probably the first thing to give out would be the legs, especially of an untrained users.

  • Doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results is not the definition of insanity. It's the definition of practice.

    Jump

  • Two points:

    Back in school, it took my teacher maybe a minute to explain the theory behind shooting a three-pointer in basket ball. It's super easy to know the correct theory and do all the cognitive decision making to do it right. But then it takes dozens of hours, or even hundreds of hours, to actually getting it right. Even though there's no concious change or decision, it's just pure practice.

    Second point: "I'm going to get a drink." - "I'm gonna do the same."

    Is the second person going to imitate every single motion of the first one identically? Or is the second person just also going to get a drink, maybe not even the same drink?