HamsterRage

joined 2 years ago
[–] HamsterRage@lemmy.ca 13 points 10 months ago (2 children)

What about the Nutria? Literally named like it's food!

[–] HamsterRage@lemmy.ca 1 points 10 months ago (3 children)

This is true, but.....

Moore's Law can be thought of as an observation about the exponential growth of technology power per $ over time. So yeah, not Moore's Law, but something like it that ordinary people can see evolving right in front of their eyes.

So a $40 Raspberry Pi today runs benchmarks 4.76 times faster than a multimillion dollar Cray supercomputer from 1978. Is that Moore's Law? No, but the bang/$ curve probably looks similar to it over those 30 years.

You can see a similar curve when you look at data transmission speed and volume per $ over the same time span.

And then for storage. Going from 5 1/4" floppy disks, or effing cassette drives, back on the earliest home computers. Or the round tapes we used to cart around when I started working in the 80's which had a capacity of around 64KB. To micro SD cards with multi-terabyte capacity today.

Same curve.

Does anybody care whether the storage is a tape, or a platter, or 8 platters, or circuitry? Not for this purpose.

The implication of, "That's not Moore's Law", is that the observation isn't valid. Which is BS. Everyone understands that that the true wonderment is how your Bang/$ goes up exponentially over time.

Even if you're technical you have to understand that this factor drives the applications.

Why aren't we all still walking around with Sony Walkmans? Because small, cheap hard drives enabled the iPod. Why aren't we all still walking around with iPods? Because cheap data volume and speed enabled streaming services.

While none of this involves counting transistors per inch on a chip, it's actually more important/interesting than Moore's Law. Because it speaks to how to the power of the technology available for everyday uses is exploding over time.

[–] HamsterRage@lemmy.ca 6 points 10 months ago

"Happy Days" initially aired about 15 years after the time in which it was set.

[–] HamsterRage@lemmy.ca 4 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I used KDE Connect on Ubuntu with Gnome. No issues.

[–] HamsterRage@lemmy.ca 4 points 10 months ago

Old school Unix guy here...vi,awk and sed are all that you need.

[–] HamsterRage@lemmy.ca 14 points 10 months ago

You might want to think about it a bit more before putting it to work. The comment with the streams example is far, far better.

[–] HamsterRage@lemmy.ca 10 points 10 months ago

You're not going to split hairs out of this one. Trying to say that these are not Evangelicals because no true Evangelical would do this is pretty much the "No True Scotsman " evasion. When people say, "Evangelicals", this is exactly the group to which they are referring.

The one or two "True Evangelicals" in the US can consider themselves exempt from this thread.

[–] HamsterRage@lemmy.ca 17 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

There's a bit of "No True Scotsman", going on here I think. You cannot deny what we all see every day, Evangelicals working every day to suppress LGBTQ and women's rights. That's what they do, that's what they are.

[Edit for typo]

[–] HamsterRage@lemmy.ca 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Wordle 1,192 2/6

🟨⬛🟨⬛🟨

🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

[–] HamsterRage@lemmy.ca 1 points 10 months ago

You should try a Halifax Donair.

[–] HamsterRage@lemmy.ca 24 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I think that the idea is that more Dems use mail-in ballots than Reps. Hand in hand with tactics like restricting the number of polling stations in minority neighborhoods, it's just another component of putting their thumb on the scale.

[–] HamsterRage@lemmy.ca 19 points 10 months ago

Back in the 70's and 80's there were "Travesty Generators". You pushed some text into them and they developed linguistic rules based on probabilities determined by the text. Then you could have them generate brand new text randomly created by applying the linguistic rules developed from the source text.

Surprisingly, they would generate "brand new" words that weren't in the original text, but were real words. And the output matched stylistically to the input text. So you put in Shakespeare and you got out something that sounded like Shakespeare. You get the idea.

I built one and tried running some TS Eliot through it, because stuff is, IMHO, close to gibberish to begin with. The results were disappointing. Basically because it couldn't get any more gibberishy that the source.

I strongly suspect that the same would happen with Trump's gibberish. There used to be a bunch of Travesty Generators online, and you could probably try one out to see.

view more: ‹ prev next ›