TheTechnician27, thetechnician27@lemmy.world

If you’re reading lines while doing lines, you may be an ambivert.

Bit of clarification: Xenacoelomorpha is the phylum that the genus *Xenoturbella* is under.

Someone left a tag at the top of the Xenacoelomorpha article advocating a rewrite, which I could probably quickly investigate (or even just check WoRMS) if I weren’t currently a lazy lump of dead weight. Without assessing the tag’s merits, I’d at least advise treading lightly as a heuristic.

As someone who has a fair bit of experience with coding and with charlatans, don’t trust the one in the OP. They just joined Lemmy today, and they’ve been spreading unfounded conspiracist FUD. Learn IT stuff first and foremost if you value your privacy; the OP has no fucking idea what they’re talking about and gives zero practical examples to illustrate their point. Programming knowledge has rarely if ever been anything more than a tangential aid in maintaining my privacy.

By all means, learn how to program; it’s a great skill. Just don’t learn it because some stranger on the Internet tells you “I promise bro it’ll be the privacy apocalypse if you don’t know how to code in, like, the coming months(TM) for some reason.” The OP doesn’t even indicate they know how to code, not that it’d make much of a difference.

(Also, this isn’t a shower thought; this is the OP soapboxing.)

Edit: Just to steelman the OP and assume their wholly unfounded and obviously bullshit claim of “you will not be able to use most popular communication platforms in the coming months” (which ones, fuckass?): amateur programming knowledge does not help with that, and it shows they know absolute jack shit about infosec. If you’re an amateur programmer building your own communication platform for the sake of privacy, you’re about to be fucked forwards and backwards until the friction from the fucking vaporizes you to cinders. You need real knowledge of mathematical fields like cryptography, not just “haha while(1) go brrrrrrr”, to build a messenger secure from the kinds of threat actors the OP vaguely alludes to.

That’s the logic I was avoiding, because although it’s heuristically likely in real life that there’s only one culprit – and that you could get Bowl 9 with ingredients a, b, c, d, e, f, and g to show it’s definitely h or i if you don’t get sick – there’s also a chance you have diarrhea on that Bowl 9 and gain very little information. There’s no conclusiveness to the variable isolation, so it’s not sound from an information theoretic perspective.

Actually, if you assume a comically unlikely worst-case scenario where all of the ingredients cause diarrhea, that sort of recursive algorithm might be the most amount of diarrhea you can get while still gaining information on each bowl.

Put the cancerous mass in the meat grinder and save 20¢ on dinner.

Oh, no, you phrased it fine; I read 8 bowls and 8 bouts multiple times and somehow still misinterpreted the experiment. It was only after I wrote down and submitted an example setup that I snapped out of my own illiteracy. I realized every possible counterexample was assuming “no diarrhea” trials.

They said they got diarrhea 8 times over 8 bowls, but they never said how many ingredients they used. (Edit: Fuck)

Assume nine ingredients exist: a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i

• Bowl 1: a + b + c + d + e + f + g + h + i: Diarrhea
• Bowl 2: a: No diarrhea
• Bowl 3: b: No diarrhea
• Bowl 4: c: No diarrhea
• Bowl 5: d: No diarrhea
• Bowl 6: e: No diarrhea
• Bowl 7: f: No diarrhea
• Bowl 8: g: No diarrhea
• Bowl 9: The one the OP is referring to “tomorrow”, which could have h, i, or h + i

That’s a perfectly feasible if disgusting way to have a bowl from a poke truck if you’re doing it solely for an experiment. And that’s just one setup; there are more convoluted ones you could do that have fewer ingredients but mixed together so your bowls aren’t just one combination. I just chose the counterexample that’s easiest to construct mathematically and which logically uses the fewest steps to eliminate each ingredient.

Edit: Wait, sorry, I misconstructed this because I misread it even while quoting it. Fuck, if they got diarrhea each time, then yeah, they’ve properly eliminated nothing.

We’ll take them at their word that they’ve truly narrowed the variables to tuna and house sauce (i.e. they’ve eaten a meal consisting of only tuna and house sauce and gotten sick, at least one of which has always been the underlying cause, but everything else they’ve eaten has been properly eliminated, and there are no ways outside of the food truck they could’ve gotten sick), and thus the only logical options are T, HS, or T+HS. The premise of the joke already relies on completely unrealistic simplifying assumptions, so we can too.

Edit: We will not do this because it’s logically impossible based on the described experiment thus far. I’m an utter dipshit.

It’s one of them.

Flawed assumption. It could be both. You’ll need to eat there at least two more times to find out, assuming each trial yields 100% certainty.

Edit: I thought it should be obvious that we’re taking them absolutely at their word that they’ve properly isolated these two variables because this experiment exists inside a joke and never happened. The whole point of the joke is that the methodology is god awful and completely unrealistic, so questioning that they’ve truly isolated the variables is pointless.

Edit 2: Wait, I totally misread the experiment setup. @TheYojimbo@lemmy.world is entirely correct that they’ve eliminated nothing if the experiment is totally defined by 8 bowls and 8 bouts of diarrhea. They’re still converging on at least one cause, but there could still be others. My career is ruined.

macOS also has this feature under the name “Shake mouse pointer to locate”.

the Ukraine

But I agree; the word “guarantee” is buckling under the weight it’s lifting.

so I’m not sure why he thinks trump will honor new ones.

Why are you stating he does when he clearly doesn’t?

“I would very much like the American side to understand that the eastern part of our country is part of our security guarantees,” he said.

“On an all-new episode of Wife Swa– wait, what the fuck is going on.”

Of note, Jordan, is that this guideline is strictly for the English Wikipedia unless other Wikipedias decide to adopt it (IIRC the German Wikipedia already adopted one some time ago). Nevertheless, we get contributions and readership from non-English-speaking countries all the time as the first, most complete, and easily most active Wikipedia. (And, of course, English-speaking countries are very much not just the US; practically every grain of sand in the UK has its own article, for example.)

I agree with you therefore that this constitutes world news.

Edit: you can use the WikiStats 2 tool to easily visualize that. Lots of visits from India, as an example. Additionally, the English Wikipedia gets slightly more visitors per capita from the UK than it does from the US.

Uhhh, ask me anything, I guess? This is the first I’m hearing of this guideline, as I missed the RFC, but it was published February 10, so I’m confused why 404 is suddenly reporting it now (edit: I was confusing it with the LLM translation guideline which they also link). 404 gets a subtle nuance wrong by calling it a “policy” rather than a “guideline”, which are technically different on Wikipedia, but it’s not worth splitting hairs for the general public.

Wikipedia editor, Ilyas Lebleu, who goes by Chaotic Enby on Wikipedia and who proposed the guideline

I’ve actually talked to them a few times before; they’re really cool.

Edit: Oh, okay, the article is actually discussing two guidelines. This one is what they’re mainly referring to. Speedy deletion criterion G15, a precursor to this, is related and says that articles predominantly created by an LLM without human oversight can be speedily deleted.

In my experience, they usually take the counter-dad joke in stride, and we move on (sometimes they do make an obviously exaggerated expression as part of the joke). I’m probably an outlier, but I’ve always found “that means it’s free” quaint if just really trite; it’s just trying to be friendly and make my monotonous day a little more fun, and I understand from their perspective that it isn’t conspicuously overused. So I take the joke for its intent (I’ve never seen it used seriously, and imagining a remotely sane human being doing so strains credulity) instead of its actual novelty or cleverness. I will never make it because it’s so worn-out and I know it’ll make most people in retail groan, but I don’t begrudge people who do, since I’ve never seen it used in a sincerely harassing, negative way.

Assuming only given name and that it only has to be phonetic. So “Megan” (deadname) and “Meaghan” (partner name) is fine.