CanadaPlus

joined 3 years ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] CanadaPlus 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

It doesn't seem like it's about strength, necessarily. People just can't keep track of more than a few factions. (And forget keeping track of the issues).

Where things manage to be non-partisan, it's because there's a strong and extensive network of local power brokers that people will listen to, like pastors or elders. Failing that, parties emerge over and over again to present a brand, and actual issue-by-issue decisions happen inside.

[–] CanadaPlus 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Good luck with that, you'll need it.

At that point the politicians might have an incentive to actually be honest, too. As it is, it's all soundbites and photo ops, because voters aren't paying attention to the details.

[–] CanadaPlus 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

Technically (and as intended originally), you vote for a representative. What they choose after that, including party affiliations, is up to them.

In practice, nobody uses the system as it's designed.

[–] CanadaPlus 1 points 2 hours ago

If we're going to acknowledge that people vote for the party, we should switch to a system that actually reflects that, and not really have ridings at all.

[–] CanadaPlus 3 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Very interesting.

Like, did he not realise that was dick behavior? Or maybe it was fake and he was trying to manipulate you a different way? What a puzzle.

[–] CanadaPlus 1 points 2 hours ago

Yeah, the US military strikes me as an institution that would not like that. They tend more towards performative politeness.

[–] CanadaPlus 3 points 2 hours ago

I always take some comfort when lying dicks are bad at it, at least. Sorry about the retail hell, though.

[–] CanadaPlus 1 points 2 hours ago

That would have been so cool, but one guess why it didn't go to market.

[–] CanadaPlus 8 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Old conservative gentleman -> definitely is a freak on the internet. The hard data I know about is limited to which US states visit porn sites the most, but there's a lot of anecdotal data.

The repression has to come out somewhere, I guess.

[–] CanadaPlus 2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (3 children)

Hmm, that level of fragile ego but also not a medical doctor. Some kind of engineering?

[–] CanadaPlus 1 points 2 hours ago

Cosmic horror is fun. When posted unprompted in response to something factual, it seems like it's trying to be a real prediction, though.

[–] CanadaPlus 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Sure, they never stopped.

South Koreans are good at building lots of things, too. The people actually making the decision won't have to guess, thankfully; they just go look at the specs.

 

The awkward "nnnts nnts nnts" also made it pretty hard to tune out. And it got a sequel, which is actually fine because they're playing that now instead.

 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/37414239

I've read the old papers proving that fact, but honestly it seems like some of the terminology and notation has changed since the 70's, and I roundly can't make heads or tails of it. The other sources I can find are in textbooks that I don't own.

Ideally, what I'm hoping for is a segment of pseudocode or some modern language that generates an n-character string from some kind of seed, which then cannot be recognised in linear time.

It's of interest to me just because, coming from other areas of math where inverting a bijective function is routine, it's highly unintuitive that you provably can't sometimes in complexity theory.

 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/37414239

I've read the old papers proving that fact, but honestly it seems like some of the terminology and notation has changed since the 70's, and I roundly can't make heads or tails of it. The other sources I can find are in textbooks that I don't own.

Ideally, what I'm hoping for is a segment of pseudocode or some modern language that generates an n-character string from some kind of seed, which then cannot be recognised in linear time.

It's of interest to me just because, coming from other areas of math where inverting a bijective function is routine, it's highly unintuitive that you provably can't sometimes in complexity theory.

 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/37414239

I've read the old papers proving that fact, but honestly it seems like some of the terminology and notation has changed since the 70's, and I roundly can't make heads or tails of it. The other sources I can find are in textbooks that I don't own.

Ideally, what I'm hoping for is a segment of pseudocode or some modern language that generates an n-character string from some kind of seed, which then cannot be recognised in linear time.

It's of interest to me just because, coming from other areas of math where inverting a bijective function is routine, it's highly unintuitive that you provably can't sometimes in complexity theory.

 

I've read the old papers proving that fact, but honestly it seems like some of the terminology and notation has changed since the 70's, and I roundly can't make heads or tails of it. The other sources I can find are in textbooks that I don't own.

Ideally, what I'm hoping for is a segment of pseudocode or some modern language that generates an n-character string from some kind of seed, which then cannot be recognised in linear time.

It's of interest to me just because, coming from other areas of math where inverting a bijective function is routine, it's highly unintuitive that you provably can't sometimes in complexity theory.

 

All the new art, I presume, is still over there.

 

Bluesky, which uses it, has been opened to federation now, and the standard basically just looks better than ActivityPub. Has anyone heard about a project to make a Lemmy-style "link aggregator" service on it?

 

It's a few months old, but in light of recent events I think it still checks out. Make sure to watch the walkaround!

 

So, this ate up a full day. Thought someone else might think it was neat. The rules were I allowed myself to look up dates, but not whole new figures I wasn't familiar with, and the goal was to go as far back as possible:

Greta Thunberg 2003-
Emannuel Macron 1977-
Roger Penrose 1931-
Elizabeth II 1926-2022
Albert Einstein 1879-1955
Franz-Joseph I 1830-1916
Victoria I 1819-1901
Nepoleon Bonaparte 1769-1821
Benjamin Franklin 1706-1790
Isaac Newton 1642-1727
Galileo Galilei 1564-1642
William Shakespeare 1564-1616
Elizabeth I 1533-1603
Henry VIII 1491-1547
Christopher Colombus 1451-1506
Mehmed the Conquerer 1432-1481
Zheng He 1371-1433
Geoffrey Chaucer 1343-1400
Wat Tyler 1341-1381
Ibn Buttata 1304-1368
Marco Polo 1254-1324
Kublai Khan 1215-1294
Fibbonacci 1170-1245
Ghengis Khan 1162-1227
Saladin 1138-1193
Averroes 1126-1198
Ismail Al-Jazari 1136–1206
Muhammad al-Idrisi 1100-1165
Al-Ghazali 1058-1111
Alexios I Komnenos 1057-1118
Pope Urban II 1035-1099
Willie the Bastard 1028-1087
Avicenna 980-1037
Leif Erikson 975-1020
Erik the Red 950-1003
Herald Fairhair 850-932
Ingolfr Arnarson 849-910
Al-Khwarizmi 780-850
Charlemagne 748-814
Pope Gregory III Unk.-741
An Lushan 703-757
Charles Martel 688-741
Bede 673-735
Empress Wu Zetian 624-705
Aisha bint Abi-Bakr 614-678
Emporer Taizhong 598-649
Prophet Muhammad 570-632
Maurice I 582-602
Gregory of Tours 538-594
Brendan the Navigator 484-577
Justinian I 482-565
Clovis I 466-511
Aleric II 460-507
Theodoric the Great 454-526
Odoacer 433-493
Attila the Hun 406-453
Aleric I 370-411
Theodosius the Great 347-395
Valentinian the Great 321-375
Constantine the Great 272-337
Diocletian 242-311
Valarian 199-264
Ardashir I 180-242
Philip the Arab 204-249
Commodus 161-192
Septimus Severus 145-211
Antoninus 86-161
Hadrian 76-138
Pliny the Younger 61-113
Trajan 53-117
Pliny the Elder 23-79
Josephus 37-100
Nero 37-68
Caligula 12-41
Wang Mang 46-23 BC
Augustus 63-14 BC
Virgil 70-19 BC
Herod the Great 72-4 BC
Julius Caesar 100-44 BC
Pompey 106-48 BC
Cicero 106-43 BC
Cato the Younger 95-46 BC
Gaius Marius 157-86 BC
Gaius Graccus 154-121 BC
Tiberius Graccus 163-133 BC
Hipparchus 190-120 BC
Cato the Elder 234-149 BC
Hannibal 247-183 BC
Archimedes 287-212 BC
Pyrrus 319-272 BC
Epicurus 341-270 BC
Alexander the Great 353-323 BC
Aristotle 384-322 BC
Plato 427-348 BC
Socrates 470-399 BC
Euripedes 480-406 BC
Xerxes I 518-465 BC
Darius the Great 550-486 BC
Croesus 585-546 BC
Cyrus the Great 600-530 BC
Nebuchadnezzar II the Great 605-562 BC
Sappho 630-570 BC

At this point I crapped out, because I hadn't read about Ashurbanipal yet. If I had, I could have gone a few further:

Ashurbanipal 685-631 BC
Taharqa Ukn.-664 BC
Sennacherib 705-681 BC
Sargon II 770-705 BC

Unfortunately my East Asian history is ass, and I'm still not sure about the deeds of You of Zhou, so it ends there. The early 1100's were also weirdly hard, although I'm not sure why - thank god for al-Idrisi's map.

A few things that surprised me: Fibbonacci could have met Ghengis Khan, Benjamin Franklin could have talked to Isaac Newton, and Galileo was literally the same age as Shakespeare.

238
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by CanadaPlus to c/canada@lemmy.ca
 

Last trip to the grocery store I couldn't find any non-US salad kits, and Silk NextMilk is made down there now, because I guess our plants were the listeria ones. Chip dip was surprisingly hard to find too, although I did it.

I'm very pleased with how many vegetables actually come from Mexico (definitely via the US though), and there's even a few things you can get from greenhouses, so that situation is less dire than I'd expected.

view more: next ›