PeriodicallyPedantic

joined 2 years ago
[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

The genie has the power to disagree about granting extra wishes.
The genie isn't bound to be honest.
Why do you think that's the only thing they can disagree on? And why do you think they'd be honest that they have to fulfill the wish to the letter? And why do you think they'd consider that all a single wish? And why do you think that they'd tell you if they didn't?

Genies want to grant wishes that undermine the wishes intention. You don't think they'd do that on a wish about not undermining the wish's intention?

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I disagree for the reason stated above.
A genie may also disagree for the reasons stated above.

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 months ago (4 children)

a wish with multiple components could be considered multiple wishes, just like if you were to say "I wish for riches and the ability to fly" is two wishes.
Since you wished for "no malicious compliance" last, it wasn't in effect when the other wishes were granted, include for the wish of no malicious compliance.

But even if you wish for it first, we already see that some wishes aren't granted, like the wish for more wishes. And we also know that the genie isndishone because it is maliciously complying. So why do you think the genie would be honest about if it actually fulfilled the wish for no malicious compliance?

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 months ago (6 children)

Just because you say "there shall be no malicious compliance" doesn't make it so, right?

If the things nature isn't to follow your orders to the letter, but to maliciously comply with your orders, then telling it not to won't change anything.

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

You've phrased this like a disagreement, but I don't see how.

Although maybe I'm just so jaded, that people providing interesting tangentially related trivia are perceived as being hostile unless they announce that as their intent, because usually unannounced trivia is leveled as an attack.

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 months ago

Again, that doesn't seem like it'd solve the problem I described better than a larger flush (or better design) would

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 months ago

That sounds like a great invention that my toilet unfortunately doesn't have - and although I know how the mechanisms in my toilet work I'm unfortunately not enough of an experience to retrofit something like that in lol

But it's something I'll keep an eye out for when I eventually buy a house, assuming that ever happens lol

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 months ago

Given the ubiquity of double clicking, I imagine it has many origins.

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I wasn't sure if you were satirically saying that trump would fix the issue, or you were accusing me of being a trump voter.

I don't live in the USA, so neither can be true, and I'm not familiar with the quote you're talking about. Although I'm usually pretty familiar with his shenanigans.

I'm complaining about my actual toilet which seems to use just too little water to completely flush everything, ironically wasting water.

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 8 points 3 months ago

My toilet is newer than that (and also I don't live in the USA), so idk what to tell you.
It could just be a poor toilet (I didn't buy it), or a plumbing issue (I live in an apartment), but if I flush once then stuff comes back up, and simply using more water fixes it so i assume it's a flow issue

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

What mechanism?
I know how to fix the stuff in the tank, and that's all working properly afaict.

view more: ‹ prev next ›