Technically, they could have. But it wouldn’t have really been Nirvana without Cobain. It was pretty much Cobain’s cult of personality. If they had tried to continue without him, it would have been another one of those bands that starkly contrasts between before and after and the comment above would have been about never knowing Nirvana in its heyday.

Even if the continuation was good (and Dave Grohl is proof that there was enough talent for it in the rest of the band), it would have still been tainted by the lack of Cobain.

I’m not sure there’s any guarantee that it will ever be sorted, since bit flips will be random and are just as likely to put it more out of order than more in order. Plus if there’s any error correction going on, it can cancel out bit flips entirely until up to a certain threshold.

Though I’m not sure if ECC (and other methods) write the corrected value back to memory or just correct the signals going to the core, so it’s possible they could still add up over time and overcome the second objection.

If you read your history books you’ll find it was a little more than just disbanded.

If I need to use consumables in this fight, then I might run out of consumables when I built a dependence on them in a harder fight later!

Yeah, I’d think they’re going to produce what they are going to produce and will adjust allocation and prices to accommodate the demand change in the tariff country.

I think that, due to the nature of chaos and the butterfly effect, any time travel at all would change the future. Unless it was just closing a time loop that was already present in the current past (which would mean any attempt to alter history would fail because that attempt is already a part of history), or if it’s possible to create new branches in time.

So these rules are either unnecessary because any time travel automatically causes changes that, it’s not possible to change the past from the past, or it’s not possible to go back to our past, thus nothing you do will affect our present.

I don’t trust them either. But I can’t not trust them unless I trust you, which I don’t.

This feels like a variation of that two guard riddle except the warning is “both guards lie all of the time” and the two guards still don’t agree.

Which is resolved by the riddle itself being the lie. Applying that here means we should do the opposite and not (never trust anyone).

Now which way does that not apply?

• sometimes trust anyone
• never distrust anyone
• never trust noone
• sometimes distrust anyone
• never distrust noone
• sometimes trust noone
• sometimes distrust noone

Also when it gets boring, sometimes it can be fun to see what happens if you cause something unusual to happen.

Ok, dinosaurs were fun for a bit, but how do they fare against meteor strikes? Hmm, these small ones keep burning up in the atmosphere. Ok, I bet THIS one won’t burn up! It will probably shake things up quite a bit in this regio–oh shit, debris from the impact is escaping orbit, that probably means it’s going to rain hot rocks for quite some time all over the planet. Dammit, it was cool when all of the land was together in one mass but I’ve cracked that apart now and they are going to end up splitting up into smaller continents now. When’s my last save state? Dammit, it’s mid Triassic, the dinosaurs were so lame back then compared to these ones today. Guess I’ll save now. I mean, they dominate the entire planet, surely they’ll come out of this ok.

There’s still a vocal minority of people upset about all the Linux talk on Lemmy, though I find deadpan is generally a lot less risky here than it was on Reddit.

And respect for keeping the historical record accurate even if it results in an unhappy score. I do the same. 👊

That’s pretty smart, using it for legal documents. If the accuracy is high, it might be nice to just copy paste any tos or whatever to get the highlights in plain language (which imo should be a legal requirement of contracts in general, but especially ones written by a team of bad faith lawyers intended for people they don’t expect to read it and deliberately written to discourage reading the whole thing).

It’s in the uncanny valley. Not the uncanny valley of cheaters vs people parodying cheaters, but the uncanny valley of parodying cheaters to protest the change vs parodying cheaters to say people insisting on Linux are doing so because they do want to cheat.

The negative review is a tip off, but that was my first interpretation of it (that you meant people who wanted it on Linux just want to cheat).

If the comments are threaded (like they are here), I don’t get why any point can be considered to derail conversations. That’s just one branch. If you don’t care to discuss that branch, just scroll past or minimize it and find another branch or start your own. They can all be discussed in parallel.

If we can’t figure out how to build stores and factories on Mars, what’s even the point of going?

Come on, Billy, you need to bulk up by mid December so you’re heavy enough to pull the rope that opens the curtains! The entire play depends on you!

Oh but some do create very helpful content like “repost!” comments to help people seeing old content from getting embarrassed by not realizing all discussion about that content has been done already.

Some try to improve stories by adding claims of applause or a famous person offering a sum of money, probably because it’s silly to imagine such embellishments and they like joining in on the fun.

That sounds a bit sketchy… Now if you had presented that statement in comic form, I might believe it.

Yeah, this current system looks pretty fucking captured to me.

Some things look like signs that things might not be that bad, like the Google ruling is a step in the right direction. But on the other hand, IMO it wasn’t enough of a step and there was a ruling against MS 20 years ago that looked really good until it was just dropped entirely (though apparently the experience did still affect Gates when he was embarrassed about having to explain his position and realizing that most people didn’t agree with it).

Today’s billionaires don’t seem to have that humility anymore, at least not the more prominent ones. Just like the right wing politicians. And all of it enabled by the billionaire-owned media.

IMO YouTube and social media are both things that would be better as public services than for profit ventures. The things they need to do to make money either make the product shitty (holy shit @ some of the things I’ve heard from people who don’t block ads) or are outright bad for society (misinformation and all).

I like it for more obscure things where the context is needed to filter out results because the words themselves get too many hits.

But I’ve also had issues with accuracy, like asking for help with syntax for an obscure scripting language application (think like lua where a specific context added an API and wanting information about that API).

It seemed like it knew what it was talking about, but turns out none of the syntax it gave were real argument names, they couldn’t be split up into seperate lines like it claimed, and the way scope worked was off. Though it was enough to get me to a decent place where correcting everything didn’t take very long.

Edit: I also like to use it to fact check comments before I post them. You can just copy paste the comment and ask it to comment on the accuracy to add a quick but basic peer review.

It pretty much involves taking a whole bunch of batteries and setting them up in a combination of series and parallel along with resistors such that the voltage potential between the two sides matches the target voltage.

But I do believe that is missing a part of the equation. Voltage is how hard it’s pushing, but there’s also the question of how well can it replace that voltage when a circuit allows a current to flow.

Kinda like pushing something by bracing yourself against a wall vs pushing it by walking behind it. In the first case, you might be able to get it moving but the force will drop off as it moves out of reach, but the latter case will keep the force sustained until you tire.

I think that’s called voltage droop and I don’t know if it’s a significant concern for batteries. It’s based on the chemistry of the battery plus resistance of internal components (and any extra components you use to put it all together).

Though one thing that is a concern is that the voltage also drops as the battery gets low. If the circuit it powers can handle that, great. Otherwise you’ll need extra circuitry to keep the voltage steady, like voltage regulators, and that will come with a higher droop.

Edit: adding berries on series increases voltage. Adding batteries in parallel reduces voltage droop.