In other news today...
-
@masonwheeler said in In other news today...:
Neo: Wait, wait, that's impossible! By the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the Machines can't possibly get more energy out of us than they expend on feeding us and maintaining basic life support.
@jaloopa said in In other news today...:
my favourite explanation for that little gaping plot hole
Of course, any conversion of energy results in a loss. But traditionally, growing food for humans involves a lot of energy from the sun. So the question is whether they're able to extract enough vs what they expend. The surplus comes from the sun.
No, TRWTF is that humans were the best they could do. But I'm OK with suspending disbelief for some movie fun.
-
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
The surplus comes from the sun.
The reason they were using humans as batteries was because humans blocked out the sun as part of the war, to remove the solar power source and defeat the machines.
Exactly what they thought they'd do after that, I'm not sure
-
@jaloopa Yeah, but solar is only one method of power generation. Anywho.
-
@masonwheeler said in In other news today...:
By the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the Machines can't possibly get more energy out of us than they expend on feeding us and maintaining basic life support.
That's actually the first law. The "science" behind this explanation is so wrong it pisses me off
-
@cark said in In other news today...:
That's actually the first law.
A little bit of both. The first law says you can't get more, the second law makes it worse by saying you have to get less, which is the actual point I was trying to get across with that gag. Probably could have been worded better.
-
-
@maciejasjmj said in In other news today...:
The idea of jailing people for watching/reading wrong things isn't exactly without precedent
It indeed is not. It's exactly what most of the totalitarian regimes out there were and are doing.
@maciejasjmj said in In other news today...:
So it's not really scandalous as much as it's silly
Yes, it is scandalous. For a regime that aims to be democratic and claims its laws are fair it is totally scandalous. Not only because it can be abused as the definition of “terrorist content” is vague, but even if it wasn't simply because it criminalizes people who didn't harm anybody nor can be proven to intend it.
It is not surprising though. United Kingdom has left the path of sanity long ago already with things like requiring a reason to have a knife with you.
-
@jaloopa said in In other news today...:
@masonwheeler my favourite explanation for that little gaping plot hole
I remember hearing in an interview with the Wachowskis that the original script said the machines wanted to commandeer human brains for extra processing power. Studio executives changed this idea to batteries because they thought it would be less confusing.
-
@remi said in In other news today...:
So, while I'm not against these laws per se (in the same way as I'm not opposed to the idea of child pornography laws), clearly they need some strong safeguards.
I am against the laws per se. A law should only exist if it can be shown it suppresses behaviour harmful for the society or its members, has positive net effect on the society and does not criminalize people who are not, actually, taking part in the harmful behaviour to be suppressed.
This law fails on all accounts: there is not much reason to think it would actually suppress terrorism and it would criminalize people who are not terrorists and do not intend to become ones, but are instead viewing the content to learn about them and be better able to oppose them.
And the same goes for any laws that prohibit viewing of child pornography which include drawings: the efficiency at finding dangerous paedophiles is questionable at best and the current position of psychologists is that watching pornography satisfies the desire thereby reducing the urge to do it for real—which implies the effect of such law would be negative.
And really, each and every law prohibiting reading or viewing of something will necessarily fail on at least on the last account. Therefore I think this kind of laws has no place in a fair, democratic legal system.
-
@dkf said in In other news today...:
@pleegwat said in In other news today...:
True, though the typical model of a turing machine has an infinite data tape it can only traverse it at a fixed speed, and thus can only access a finite part of it in finite time.
Systems inside the simulation cannot observe using any time metric other than time metrics within the simulation, and so cannot observe how long it takes for the simulator to do anything or how much effort it requires. All that is information that is simply not available.
OTOH, one could assume that c is related to processing speed limits, and that "spooky action at a distance" demonstrates that the simulation is running some amount slower than real-time. Or something like that.
-
-
@masonwheeler The script says "combined with a type of fusion generator".
Which actually makes it MORE moronic, because if they have a goddamned fusion generator what the fuck do they need the people for?
A far better explanation would have been, "the robots were programmed not to kill people, so The Matrix is their way to get them out of the way without killing them." But then I guess that raises the question of why the Sentinels were trying to kill them, but that's a hell of a lot easier to write-around than "a form of fusion generator".
EDIT:
From The Matrix wiki:
According to early scripts from The Matrix, nuclear fusion was the primary power source of the Machines, while the minds of the pod-humans are also combined as a form of biocomputing Neural Network.
Ok so it made a HELL of a lot more sense in the original screenplay too. "Sure robots could just kill humans, but why not use those juicy brains as additional compute cores? We have fusion power so it's not like keeping them fed and alive is any problem."
EDIT:
In fact the more I think about, the more sense the first draft made. It explains why it was ok for the sentinels to kill humans outside the power plants (no more computer power from them, no reason to keep them) And Neo and crew could figure out how to manipulate the simulation because they weren't having half their think-power working for the machines dulling their wits, they were 100% aware.
Why the hell did they change it.
-
@blakeyrat because movie execs are morons who think everyone is as stupid as they are.
-
@benjamin-hall ...except when they screw up by going to the opposite extreme, of course.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ViewersAreGeniuses
And occasionally you get the ever-so-rare gem that's meant to be enjoyed by ordinary, run-of-the-mill smart people. That was one of the reasons I liked Person of Interest so much.
-
-
@pjh said in In other news today...:
Study Shows the Danger of Dabbing...
So, a little dab will do you... in?
-
www.cnet.com/news/pixel-2-unlimited-google-photo-storage-promo/
(Shitty autoplay video so removed onebox).
CNET writes article complaining about how Google will limit uploads to 16 megapixels after 2020. Just about remembers to mention the Pixel 2's camera is 12 megapixels.
-
@blakeyrat said in In other news today...:
Why the hell did they change it.
My guess would be that in 1999 (or a couple of years before when the script was finished?), whoever doctored the script judged that the typical spectator would not be familiar enough with what "computing power" meant. After all, quite a few people had not really used a lot of computers by then.
That's still a stupid change, though. But if not having plot holes was a requirement for making a successful movie, Holywood would be a very different place.
-
@boner Scientists determine that water is wet. Film at 11.
-
-
I am not sure if I should laugh or cry.
-
Bleeding a radiator tops the list of household chores young Brits can’t perform, with 69% of 18-24 year olds saying they don’t know how to do this.
I'm older than that and I don't think I've seen a radiator since I was a kid. Are they common in the UK?
-
@hungrier said in In other news today...:
Bleeding a radiator tops the list of household chores young Brits can’t perform, with 69% of 18-24 year olds saying they don’t know how to do this.
I'm older than that and I don't think I've seen a radiator since I was a kid. Are they common in the UK?
I've only lived in one house that had those... 1906 house in NJ. The insulation sucked. (was there from 4th? to 8th grades.)
-
Filed under: How to be pedantically correct and utterly disingenuous at the same time
- The explosive found in the Las Vegas shooter's car may not have been Tannerite®-brand binary exploding target mix.
Ok, fair enough; it was probably a generic, home-made mix of ammonium nitrate and aluminum powder, not Tannerite®-brand binary exploding target mix. Defend your employer's trademark.
- Tannerite®-brand binary exploding target mix is not an explosive.
Technically true, before it's mixed together. Individually, the components are not classified as explosives, and do not require permits to possess (although at least one state prohibits the two ingredients from being sold together to make an explosive). Once it's mixed, though, it sure as @#&*#!% is an explosive. It's legal to possess for personal, non-commercial use in situ; any storage or transportation requires proper handling procedures, storage and/or transportation containers, hazmat signs and permits. If a law enforcement officer is talking about finding Tannerite (brand name or not) in a mass murderers car, it's 99.99999999% certain he's talking about stuff that's already been mixed together. Yeah, it's an explosive.
- The explosive found in the Las Vegas shooter's car may not have been Tannerite®-brand binary exploding target mix.
-
@dragoon said in In other news today...:
I am not sure if I should laugh or cry.
Well, that's the answer to the age old question:
How many Brits does it take to change a lightbulb?
At least 9 to ensure at least one person knows how to do it.
I'm really surprised someone else didn't make this joke already
-
-
@dragoon said in In other news today...:
I am not sure if I should laugh or cry.
"Use the boiler"? WTF? Are they talking about a stovetop appliance?
-
-
Hines responded pretty carefully on the greater subject, but he didn't seem concerned about losing a few sales to an anti-Nazi ad campaign: "To be honest, people who are against freeing the world from the hate and murder of a Nazi regime probably aren't interested in playing Wolfenstein."
Next up: Someone will call for a boycott on The Man in the High Castle.
-
@dragoon said in In other news today...:
I am not sure if I should laugh or cry.
Last time I tried to change a GU10 bayonet mount lamp embedded in a ceiling panel I felt like that.
My fingers are unfortunately more than 2mm thick.
-
@karla said in In other news today...:
@dragoon said in In other news today...:
I am not sure if I should laugh or cry.
Well, that's the answer to the age old question:
How many Brits does it take to change a lightbulb?
At least 9 to ensure at least one person knows how to do it.
I'm really surprised someone else didn't make this joke already
Is one in nine who don't know how to really that surprising? Surely one out of nine are would-be managers or princesses. I'd be more concerned if it was five out of nine.
-
@hungrier said in In other news today...:
I'm older than that and I don't think I've seen a radiator since I was a kid. Are they common in the UK?
In NL, I haven't seen many houses without. About the only alternative I've seen residentially is under-floor heating, which is rarely deployed in the entire house. Well, and an the apartment my brother bought a few years ago - it still only had a gas heater in the living room, he and my dad installed central heating shortly after he bought it.
With our climate, the idea of not having any heating is absurd.
-
@tsaukpaetra said in In other news today...:
@dragoon said in In other news today...:
I am not sure if I should laugh or cry.
"Use the boiler"? WTF? Are they talking about a stovetop appliance?
https://www.worcester-bosch.co.uk/archive/boilers/what-is-a-combi-boiler
Had to change the settings on mine today to re-enable the central heating. Finally cold enough that two computers and the server aren't enough to keep the house comfy.
-
@dragoon said in In other news today...:
I am not sure if I should laugh or cry.
I let a house to students and, over the past decade, they certainly never knew how to bleed radiators. It also appears that many don't know how to replace bulbs. I've preempted that problem now by installing LEDs everywhere - so the new generation may remain in blissful ignorance.
It makes me feel very old
-
@japonicus said in In other news today...:
@dragoon said in In other news today...:
I am not sure if I should laugh or cry.
I let a house to students and, over the past decade, they certainly never knew how to bleed radiators. It also appears that many don't know how to replace bulbs. I've preempted that problem now by installing LEDs everywhere - so the new generation may remain in blissful ignorance.
It makes me feel very old
Is there at least a gender difference - are the ones who ask you to change the bulbs just, or mostly, girls?
-
@chozang I doubt it, they've mostly been mixed households.
All I know is that, by the end of the year once the tenants have gone, several rooms often have non-functional bulbs. They assumption has to be that the occupants are happy to put up with living in rooms without lights rather than going to a local store (~100 metres away), buying a new bulb and fitting it.
It's quite odd
-
@japonicus said in In other news today...:
@chozang I doubt it, they've mostly been mixed households.
All I know is that, by the end of the year once the tenants have gone, several rooms often have non-functional bulbs. They assumption has to be that the occupants are happy to put up with living in rooms without lights rather than going to a local store (~100 metres away), buying a new bulb and fitting it.
It's quite odd
I don't suppose there's any chance that they're just super cheap -- they might be thinking, "I'm not going to leave the bulbs I bought for the next tenant!" and taking the good ones with them? Or, conversely, that they're so poor (students sometimes are pretty poor) that price is the reason they don't replace them?
-
@japonicus said in In other news today...:
All I know is that, by the end of the year once the tenants have gone, several rooms often have non-functional bulbs. They assumption has to be that the occupants are happy to put up with living in rooms without lights rather than going to a local store (~100 metres away), buying a new bulb and fitting it.
Consider yourself lucky if you don't still end up with non-functional bulbs in several of the rooms.
It's your house, so technically it's your responsibility -- and covered under the rent -- to replace stuff that breaks in the normal course of occupation. Refrigerator, furnace, microwave, smoke alarms, and yes, light bulbs -- if it was part of the house, and they didn't bring it with them, it's up to you to replace it.
In practice, though, renters won't try to contact you to get you to replace light bulbs -- not worth the hassle; they'll just put their own bulbs in. Then when they leave, they put your broken bulb back and take theirs with them, leading to the phenomenon you described.
But they also might not be above replacing your nice LED bulbs with their own crappy ones when they leave. So... good luck.
-
@chozang said in In other news today...:
I'd be more concerned if it was five out of nine.
If it was Seven of Nine, I'd be happy to change the light bulb for her.
-
@japonicus said in In other news today...:
installing LEDs everywhere - so the new generation may remain in blissful ignorance.
LEDs do not last forever. There is one above my desk at work that is flickering annoyingly.
-
@hardwaregeek the LEDs themselves damn near do. The super-cheap power supplies that step your household 120 VAC down to the couple of volts DC that the LED actually uses... not so much.
-
@anotherusername Maybe, but it's still part of the "bulb." Whatever part of it fails, the bulb still needs to be replaced.
-
@anotherusername yes, there're plenty of ways for tenants to screw landlords (and vice versa), but so far I've been fairly lucky - probably helps that if you treat people reasonably they mostly return the favour.
It's certainly possible that people do weird things like swap back in a broken bulb - but at least for low cost bulbs it seems more hassle than it's worth and mostly I've not seen other instances of that sort of pettiness.
Usually in the UK 'consumable' things like light bulbs would definitely be the tenants' responsibility to replace (and contracts often state that explicitly). If the light fitting itself failed then that's obviously down to the landlord.
@hardwaregeek said in In other news today...:
LEDs do not last forever. There is one above my desk at work that is flickering annoyingly.
They seem to be getting better (the first generation of mains voltage ones were definitely not good, but the more recent ones I have seem to be doing ok).
-
It's a bit old, but I only noticed via local magazine. Anyway:
-
@japonicus said in In other news today...:
Usually in the UK 'consumable' things like light bulbs would definitely be the tenants' responsibility to replace (and contracts often state that explicitly).
Everywhere I've rented (California and Washington state), replacing smoke detector batteries is explicitly the tenants' responsibility. If a safety feature like a smoke detector battery is the tenants' responsibility, surely trivial things like light bulbs are, too. Also, depending on the jurisdiction and how long you've lived in the house/apartment, "normal wear and tear" like dirty carpet can be taken out of your deposit when you leave, so surely things like light bulbs that you have failed to replace can, too.
-
@bulb said in In other news today...:
have drivers come inside the house to put it away while you watch them on your phone.
No. Just no.
-
@cursorkeys said in In other news today...:
@tsaukpaetra said in In other news today...:
@dragoon said in In other news today...:
I am not sure if I should laugh or cry.
"Use the boiler"? WTF? Are they talking about a stovetop appliance?
https://www.worcester-bosch.co.uk/archive/boilers/what-is-a-combi-boiler
Had to change the settings on mine today to re-enable the central heating. Finally cold enough that two computers and the server aren't enough to keep the house comfy.
I'm sad. Next life skill on the chopping block will be dialing the telephone...
-
@pleegwat said in In other news today...:
@hungrier said in In other news today...:
I'm older than that and I don't think I've seen a radiator since I was a kid. Are they common in the UK?
In NL, I haven't seen many houses without. About the only alternative I've seen residentially is under-floor heating, which is rarely deployed in the entire house. Well, and an the apartment my brother bought a few years ago - it still only had a gas heater in the living room, he and my dad installed central heating shortly after he bought it.
With our climate, the idea of not having any heating is absurd.
A radiator, in this case, is referring to a steam-powered thing. I remember the whistling and bleeding...
-
@tsaukpaetra said in In other news today...:
Next life skill on the chopping block will be dialing the telephone...
-
@bb36e Dang. 'd