Luccus

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 17 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Who's "they"?

If it's Urologists, like, those are the experts. If it's someone on Twitter, they don't matter. If it's women as a whole… oh, boy. Dude. If it's "the jews", OH. BOY. DUDE. HOW EVEN?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago

Me: Can I have (small template parser)?

Stackoverflow: No, we have (small template parser) at home.

Small template parser at home: Full-stack web framework

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Can you spot why years, months, days, hours and minutes are not SI units?

This is an honest question. The SI units were chosen very carefully with regard to their human usability and scientific universality.

[–] [email protected] 47 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (7 children)

I fairly often drive 50,000m/h, except on the autobahn. There I usually go about 120,000,000mm/h.

And if I stack 1000 1cm³ blocks of water, the resulting 10m high column has a volume of 1l, weighs 1kg and exerts 100kPa of pressure on its base. And to heat it by 1°C requires 1kcal, while 1N would accelerate it by 1m/s every second.

What I want to say is: Your point is stupid and your units are too.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

I'd love to say something sensible, understandable and concise.

But this post is like someone shouting "WHY DID MATHEMATICIANS MAKE THE √ SYMBOL TICK SHAPED?!", convinced they've found a way to prove that 2+2 is not 4.

There is so much to unpack there. Properly responding to every explicit and implicit grain is like reasoning against a beach.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Thanks, you too!

[–] [email protected] 11 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

My "favorite neoliberal"?

I'm an entire person, not a single-sided strawman. I edited my reply to also state that I think neolibs suck too, if that helps to unflatten my thoughts on this a bit. And because I think they do.

I'd also like to add that I've seen this image and others like it posted in anti-progressive groups by anti-progressive people, instilling exactly the message I explained earlier. Which is why I say the message either isn't clear, or just bad.

I don't feel like I'm "gasping at straws". I feel my argument is somewhat reasonable and I hope my point is a little clearer now.

I have to go back to work now.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (6 children)

I mean that someone saw hostile architecture and then decided to photoshop a trans flag over it for political reasons.

We, as strangers, will never know their exact motivation, but I think if their idea was a message regarding the unfair treatment of economically disadvantaged people or neoliberal hypocrisy, there would be much better ways to communicate the issue, that don't involve something that can easily be construed as anti-trans messaging.

It's a bit vibes based, but you know.... people ain't robots, and even if that wasn't the original intent, that's how the message comes across. And I'd rather have a better, more poignant statement that's worth repeating, rather than this, perhaps unintentionally, bad one.

Especially because people will take this at face value and there are more photoshopped images just like this, making the whole thing a bit sussy, imo.

[–] [email protected] 100 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (67 children)

How can it be that people don't realize how badly faked this is and what position it is trying to sneak through?

[–] [email protected] 27 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

As a German, I feel like, we should be capable of seeing 10th of thousands of people die, including reporters, aid workers and literal children, and fathom that this… is bad.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Hab einen Vorschlag:

Wir nehmen ein existentes Konzept für ein gelöstes Problem.

Dass benennen wir dann um, sodass es futuristisch und neu klingt.

Anschließend ent-lösen wir es, indem wir super geringe Energiedichte mit maximaler Ineffizienz kombinieren.

Und wir nutzen unsere Lösung in einem Bereich, wo sich die bisherige Lösung nicht durchsetzen konnte, weil sie für diesen Use-Case die schlechtest-denkbare Lösung ist.

Wissing (FDP) gibt uns 150 Mio.

view more: ‹ prev next ›