That was no steakhouse. You straight up walked into a Mafia front. Like out of Michael Jackson’s Smooth Criminal music video.

deleted by creator

I don’t care. Will always be Nome. Fuck Pedo Stallman’s preference.

I feel similar but with a 16-17” 3K resolution. Honestly it’s the biggest thing keeping me away from a Linux laptop and in my ancient 15” MacBook Pro.

“Right to Travel” == right to walk on and across an interstate freeway where 5000 lb death missiles are hurtling past me at 90 mi/hr.

I’d say it actually goes further. We have plenty of evidence leading to the realization of fact that simply measuring a phenomenon changes the phenomenon. From a quantum mechanics perspective we say things like “measuring the phenomenon collapses its wave function to a single state.”

When a quantum system is measured, its wave function, which represents a superposition of multiple potential outcomes, collapses to a single definite state corresponding to the result of the measurement.

All macroscopic phenomena comprise nanoscopic quantum phenomena.

Super fucking weird to think about. The classic undergrad physics experiment is the double-slit experiment— particles like electrons create an interference pattern when unobserved, acting like waves and passing through both slits at once. However, when we measure which slit a particle goes through, this wave-like behavior disappears, and the particle behaves as if it went through only one slit. This shows that measurement collapses the particle’s wave function from multiple possibilities into a single, definite state.

Similarly, despite being depicted as such in early exposures to chemistry, electrons don’t “orbit” the nucleus like planets do their stars—rather they have regions around the nucleus in which they are more probably found. These misleadingly named “orbitals” vary in shape.

Finally, we have the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle; which states that we can measure either a particle’s speed (kinetic energy) or its location, but not both, because the act of measuring (observing) that particle irrevocably changes it.

Here’s a macroscopic example of how measuring/observing things changes the thing. When you measure the temperature of an object using a thermometer, the object is either transmitting or receiving thermal energy to/from the thermometer, because the thermometer needs to be in contact and thermal equilibrium with the object. The object’s total energy level has now changed—even if it’s a trivial change it’s also non-zero. Measuring/observing the object in this way has changed it.

omg it goes deeper. I love physics. Classical mechanics models work well when we want to explain and predict macroscopic and limited chain-of-events phenomena. We can predict with high confidence that a 2000 kg car traveling at 100 km/h will impulse this much force and energy to a stationary object when they collide, assuming a perfectly inelastic collision, spherical cows, etc. We can’t model with any confidence with any classical model how the displaced air molecules from this collision in Nuremberg, Germany will create tornadoes in six months in Wichita, Kansas, USA. That’s the butterfly effect.

Ultimately, this interplay between measurement and outcome highlights a fundamental truth in both quantum mechanics and chaos theory: the universe is inherently unpredictable at every scale. Just as the behavior of subatomic particles is influenced by the act of observation, the butterfly effect shows us that small changes can lead to significant consequences in complex systems. This intertwining of uncertainty and complexity underscores the limitations of our predictive models, whether they pertain to the quantum realm or the macroscopic world.

The notion that our universe is perfectly causal to the point that you can predict exactly when and where that specific atom will decay is pretty much bunked at this point. Not that living in a probabilistic, quantum physics universe is any fucking easier to comprehend but them’s be the cards we were dealt.

Might be the only job that’s left after StarNet takes over.

The funny thing here is that there are many good distributions that are based on Ubuntu. I’m a Pop!_OS fanboy, many of my colleagues enjoy Mint. Yet, almost everyone I know in the Linux world despises Ubuntu.

Richard Trickle

The most annoying thing about a lot of these is that tutorials are “minimal viable setup” sorta things. Like “now you have it setup, make sure you tune it for production”

Dude I’m already in pain from trying to serve these models and you just have to go rub salt into my eyes. “Simplify your stack with <Tech>” they said. “Share your resources effectively and easily with <Tech>” they said. “Here’s your fuckin’ ‘Hello, World’ now GRTFM and buzz off” they said.

Working close to the metal do be like that.

sudo

Pop!_OS this was a good idea for a new game.

oFCoURsE! And the dot at the end with no file type extension? Also intentional.

stOcHaStIC-l33t-CasE FTW yizzo.

But he’s not wrong. Every awesome opportunity I’ve had was the unknown on the opposite side of fear and self-doubt.

Push into the darkness, friends.

Hello darkness, my old friend.

Objective accomplished.

Gravity doesn’t exist. All matter interactions are by electromagnetism and Ver Der Waals forces only.

lol I’m an idiot. I just finished a rewatch of Mr. Robot in which a taxidermist that stuffs formerly living animals plays a prominent role. That show kinda fucks with my head and messed up my perception of reality for a while.

lol I’m an idiot. I just finished a rewatch of Mr. Robot in which a taxidermist that stuffs formerly living animals plays a prominent role. That show kinda fucks with my head and messed up my perception of reality for a while.