justaderp

I just like bears, know a little bit, and think they're getting fucked over in many parts of the US. I definitely wasn't finding fault with a joke.

If you tried to scritch a wild cat you might just get away with it for awhile. But, you're never getting that hand back :)

I know it's just a joke. But, black and brown bears are very intelligent and quite peaceful creatures. I've run into forty or fifty in the wilderness. I've never once felt the bear was considering an attack. They're smart enough to recognize our complex behaviors as a large risk to their safety.

The story of the vast majority of humans mauled by bears:

Your dog has a perfect record of defending the pack. Every single time the target either runs or turns out to be friendly. No other pack member defends. Its primary reason to exist is to defend. A bear has a perfect record of fights with anything but another bear.

One day the bear smells some food, good stuff it can't find normally. It's some campers with their dog. The dog smells the bear, full adrenaline drops for its whole reason to exist, and defends the pack. The bear wins in about one second.

The human defends the dog. The bear fights because that's what it's doing right now. Then, it reconsiders and runs away. Finally, the Forest Rangers track down and kill the bear quietly, preserving the tourism the community relies on.

We're really shitty to bears, at least here in the US. They're not even very dangerous relative an wild elk, moose, or even free range livestock. It's the big and dumb ones you need to watch out for. And marmot. Never disagree with a marmot.

I hope I don't make it to 80, that I don't have to muster the courage to action my principles. Let me die with meaning before I'm no longer contributing to our fight for dignity. A body without a brain is little more than a vessel for profit.

I don't play this game and have no idea how I ended up here. But, I know the answer to this one, I think.

I once wanted to live in the desert. I worked for it for a whole year (when such was possible): saving, planning, changing vehicles, then job hunting. I totally got there.

After one week in the desert I decided I fucking hate it. For awhile I thought it was a total fucking loss. But, then I realized that if I'd not gone to the desert I'd never have learned I hated it. I'd still be unhappy and still wanting something that wasn't going to work. I'm glad I went to the desert or I'd never have found my love of the mountains.

If it's not a significant sacrifice to pay for a membership then buy the damned thing. See if it makes you happy. What is it, $10-20 for a month? And, that'd answer a question about happiness you've had for years. Seems cheap.

If that $10-20 is important, PM me. I'll give it to you. Get your answer. I'd consider it money well spent.

The pay is the satisfaction of a job well done. It's like a family. We work hard and we play hard. Make sure to read the company policy on appropriate flair. Don't miss the meeting to decide how to form the committee for defining the best means of communication between committees for accounting, finance, and those troublemakers from the moderation committee.

Remember conservation of momentum. The only way the machine can absorb part of the impulse is through friction, heat, and by redirecting the existing chamber pressure after the bullet has left the barrel.

Remember the human body. Magnitude matters much more than duration. Extending the time of impulse by implementing a slide lessens magnitude, the areas under the impulse curves roughly equivalent.

I'm going to apply the above to answer your questions to say it again :)

Does the slide absorb any significant amount of energy?

For a properly functioning, modern, and typically-designed pistol and a status quo definition of "significant", the answer is: No. That's not what it's designed to do. But, energy can be dissipated slightly if the pistol is compensated: a redirection of chamber pressure from near the end of the barrel, upwards, counter the torque component of the recoil impulse.

What's the math on this, say the dissipated energy in a semi auto VS revolver using the same round?

It's not quite a good question. The maximum force during the impulse is what a human cares about when analyzing a slide. That's what'll effect accuracy of the next round and how sore your hands will be in the morning.

If minimization of total impulse is what's being analyzed then one would want to compare rifles. Rifles have larger rounds, longer barrel length thus more time to use chamber pressure to mitigate recoil.

You've good questions for coming into the middle. Go to the beginning: rounds and various types of actions, rifleman 101. Come back to the hard science.

Above PugJesus talks about the energy of the round being very large. There's more to it.

The derringer design lacks any technology to absorb and extend the impulse of recoil, most importantly the slide found on any modern semi automatic.

Not only is there extreme recoil, there's also absolutely nothing to help the shooter deal with it.

There's been no rulings granting a transgender rights greater than another. It'd have been global news, the consequences of which would still be cascading through the judicial system.

So, when this transgender person was granted what may have been, after an arduous battle, equality in one situation, you disagreed.

What defines humans from other animals is complex communication and it's derivatives. I need not know the transgender person, be transgender myself, or even have a gay friend to feel basic human sympathy and empathy for them. That's the minimum human response: neutrality, equality. Anything less is animalistic hatred.

Edit: I've passed judgement on just this perspective you hold, not on you as a person. If I didn't believe you valuable I'd not have invested the time to explain why I expect more and believe you capable.

I'm not actually asking for good faith answers to these questions. Asking seems the best way to illustrate the concept.

Does the programmer fully control the extents of human meaning as the computation progresses, or is the value in leveraging ignorance of what the software will choose?

Shall we replace our judges with an AI?

Does the software understand the human meaning in what it does?

The problem with the majority of the AI projects I've seen (in rejecting many offers) is that the stakeholders believe they've significantly more influence over the human meaning of the results than exists in the quality and nature of the data they've access to. A scope of data limits a resultant scope of information, which limits a scope of meaning. Stakeholders want to break the rules with "AI voodoo". Then, someone comes along and sells the suckers their snake oil.