• 0 Posts
  • 19 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 18th, 2023

help-circle


  • Sloogs@lemmy.dbzer0.comto196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneFreedom rule
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    I didn’t invent that take if you think it’s strange. Ironically these interpretations of liberty originally came from European philosophers, originally Rousseau I think, so take it up with them. 🤷🏻

    I don’t think they were thinking about in terms of freedom from hate but more like creating social structures that enable freedoms and try to balance out everyone’s rights, like the right to exist, in the face of something like hate vs eliminating any social structures and cutting out any middle man that would not allow someone to hate whichever thing and whoever they want to.


  • Sloogs@lemmy.dbzer0.comto196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneFreedom rule
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    I’ve heard it the exact opposite. Freedom to is positive freedom which tends to be a more social leftist or social liberal trait. Negative freedom (freedom from) is typically a more modern right wing or libertarian trait. But also you could have libertarian leftists or anarchists that lean more towards negative liberty, as well as fiscal conservatives that lean more towards positive liberty on social issues, so it’s not fully a left/right thing.

    Basically the difference is enabling people via common social framework that gives people options and social mobility vs complete non-interference by government or any other entity even if it limits options and social mobility for anyone but yourself due to their life circumstances.

    Here’s a quote from the Wikipedia article on positive liberty that backs up this interpretation of the to/from distinction. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty):

    "Erich Fromm sees the distinction between the two types of freedom emerging alongside humanity’s evolution away from the instinctual activity that characterizes lower animal forms. This aspect of freedom, he argues, “is here used not in its positive sense of freedom to but in its negative sense of ‘freedom from’, namely freedom from instinctual determination of his actions.”

    I don’t know that I agree with that premise but it’s an example of the to/from dichotomy being used in relation to positive/negative freedom just so you know I’m not making anything up.


  • In-spite of its potential for liberation and independence.

    When it shows that potential, maybe more people will get on board. Until then there are a host of problems that make a ton of people not want to touch it including but not limited to:

    1. Capitalists and scammers are already exploiting it the way they do with traditional currencies, except in sometimes new creative ways because of either the lack of regulations or because the technology inherently makes it impossible to trace.

    2. I don’t see the involvement of predatory capitalists or financial institutions changing in a fully crypto world either, because people are always going to need financial services like loans and insurance on their savings and the financial institutions will always have the imbalance of power.

    3. The currencies mostly benefit people with a ton of capital to handle consensus, which further entrenches the power imbalance found in (1) and (2).

    4. Insane amounts of resources are needed to reach consensus in a way that is not good at all for the environment, whether that be electricity, computer hardware, or whatever other resource. Sure we already use a lot of power to make our society run. But crypto is asking for more ON TOP of that, compounding the issues. Saying the financial industry already uses a lot of power is not a good argument when I don’t think anyone is reasonably convinced that they’re going away even after crypto were to take over, and now you’re adding an insane power or pollution requirement to run the world’s currency system.

    5. Relying solely on crypto leaves people destitute if their wallets got hacked, unless they decide to utilize traditional banking with insurance (hint: people like stability and a lot of people will choose to do this over having their life savings wiped out).

    6. Chucklefucks are using the technology to commodify and break the best part of the digital world which is the ability to have bit for bit reproducible copies of information.

    I’m serious. Fix all of that and you absolutely would get people on board. Not even kidding. Crypto would be taken seriously. But I have yet to hear compelling solutions by cryptobros.


  • The conventional view on infinity would say they’re actually the same size of infinity assuming the 1 and the 100 belong to the same set.

    You’re right that one function grows faster but infinity itself is no different regardless of what you multiply them by. The infinities both have same set size and would encompass the same concept of infinity regardless of what they’re multiplied by. The set size of infinity is denoted by the order of aleph (ℵ) it belongs to. If both 1 and 100 are natural numbers then they belong to the set of countable infinity, which is called aleph-zero (ℵ₀). If both 1 and 100 are reals, then the size of their infinities are uncountably infinite, which means they belong to aleph-one (ℵ₁).

    That said, you can definitely have different definitions of infinity that are unconventional as long as they fit whatever axioms you come up with. But since most math is grounded in set theory, that’s where this particular convention stems from.

    Anyways, given your example it would really depend on whether time was a factor. If the question was “would you rather have 1 • x or 100 • x dollars where x approaches infinity every second?” well the answer is obvious, because we’re describing something that has a growth rate. If the question was “You have infinity dollars. Do you prefer 1 • ∞ or 100 • ∞?” it really wouldn’t matter because you have infinity dollars. They’re the same infinity. In other words you could withdraw as much money as you wanted and always have infinity. They are equally as limitless.

    Now I can foresee a counter-argument where maybe you meant 1 • ∞ vs 100 • ∞ to mean that you can only withdraw in ones or hundred dollar bills, but that’s a synthetic constraint you’ve put on it from a banking perspective. You’ve created a new notation and have defined it separately from the conventional meaning of infinity in mathematics. And in reality that is maybe more of a physics question about the amount of dollar bills that can physically exist that is practical, and a philosophical question about the convenience of 1 vs 100 dollar bills, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the size of infinity mathematically. Without an artificial constraint you could just as easily take out your infinite money in denominations of 20, 50, 1000, a million, and still have the same infinite amount of dollars left over.


  • Sloogs@lemmy.dbzer0.comto196@lemmy.blahaj.zonePizza Rule
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    The math only really works for 18+ inch pizzas though. The pizza places around me don’t even offer 18 inch pizzas. 14" large or 16" XL are the highest they go. In that case at most places near me, two twelves is often cheaper per square inch and does have more area than one 14" or 16". Especially since Domino’s usually has coupons for two 12s that make it significantly cheaper than 1 L or XL.




  • Maybe, but Microsoft’s competitors are doing a lot better on the battery life front so they’re leaving a lot on the table for competitors to swoop in by not fixing their sleep and wake issues. It was a big consideration for the company I work at to go with Apple machines because they do lots of field work and need the machines running all day. I can say from experience it’s incredibly frustrating to leave home with my MS Surface on a full charge only for it to have majority of the battery drained by the time I pull it out of my backpack due to waking up when it wasn’t supposed to.











  • It will prefetch the instructions and put into the pipeline the branch it thinks is mostly likely. It may do ahead-of-time speculative execution on certain instructions but not always. If it missed the correct branch it will flush the pipeline and start the pipeline over again from the correct branch. Afaik it doesn’t execute or prefetch both branches. The other guy is saying it does but that doesn’t really gel with my own recollection or the Wikipedia article he cited. You can see some further discussion that suggests only one branch gets prefetched here here and here. Reasons cited for only predicting one branch are: 1) Two pipelines with all the associated circuitry to look ahead, decode, and speculatively execute is incredibly expensive in terms of both processing requirements and die real estate. 2) Caching both would thrash your caches with new data constantly. 3) Modern branch prediction is already so accurate, there’s really no need for two pipelines anyways.