The Official Funny Stuff Thread™
-
-
Here's a picture of me when I was younger
Every picture of you is a picture when you were younger
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Me pranking a streamer who was playing viewer levels. The best part is how long it takes him to catch on:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke83qANcqp4&t=7162s(Ignore the weird voice-overs. That was other people in Chat messing around with a TTS addon.)
You watch DGR too?
I didn't realize the "Mason" was you.
-
@sockpuppet7 said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
I like the first one, but it seems to be missing the antennae...
-
Well, I got:
-
@Gern_Blaanston said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Every picture of you is a picture when you were younger
dr who would disagree
-
-
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Me pranking a streamer who was playing viewer levels. The best part is how long it takes him to catch on:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke83qANcqp4&t=7162s(Ignore the weird voice-overs. That was other people in Chat messing around with a TTS addon.)
You watch DGR too?
I didn't realize the "Mason" was you.
Yes I do. And if you watch him on Twitch, it shouldn't be particularly difficult to guess who I am there...
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@Tsaukpaetra said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Me pranking a streamer who was playing viewer levels. The best part is how long it takes him to catch on:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke83qANcqp4&t=7162s(Ignore the weird voice-overs. That was other people in Chat messing around with a TTS addon.)
You watch DGR too?
I didn't realize the "Mason" was you.
Yes I do. And if you watch him on Twitch, it shouldn't be particularly difficult to guess who I am there...
Lol I don't pay attention to chat on good days!
-
-
@dangeRuss Yeah. Reminds me of Soma where the player character just seemingly physically can't understand that concept for the whole game...
-
-
@dangeRuss said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
For those of us who don't C++, the difference is between passing by reference and passing by value. Ie, the former passes the existing value, while the second one creates a new copy.
-
@Zecc I'm not sure whether they are hoping for
unique_ptr
orshared_ptr
, possibly withstd::move
, but copy is the most likely option...
-
@Zecc said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@dangeRuss said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
For those of us who don't C++, the difference is between passing by reference and passing by value.
I don't see the problem since you pass either way. But I doubt some people have anything that could be called a "conscience" nor any values to begin with.
-
@LaoC said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@Zecc said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@dangeRuss said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
For those of us who don't C++, the difference is between passing by reference and passing by value.
I don't see the problem since you pass either way. But I doubt some people have anything that could be called a "conscience" nor any values to begin with.
Well, when most people want immortality, they want to avoid death. Making a copy that behaves like you isn't immortality in the way they want it. Even if it's a perfect copy of you that even acts, thinks and feels like you, it's still not you. You will still die.
By reference doesn't make a copy, it just references the original in a new context. And as the image says, this isn't what's gonna happen.
-
@Carnage said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@LaoC said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@Zecc said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@dangeRuss said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
For those of us who don't C++, the difference is between passing by reference and passing by value.
I don't see the problem since you pass either way. But I doubt some people have anything that could be called a "conscience" nor any values to begin with.
Well, when most people want immortality, they want to avoid death. Making a copy that behaves like you isn't immortality in the way they want it. Even if it's a perfect copy of you that even acts, thinks and feels like you, it's still not you. You will still die.
I know, I just couldn't let the opportunity pass to make a weak reference to the euphemistic use of "to pass" for "to die".
-
@LaoC said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
I just couldn't let the opportunity pass to make a weak reference
-
@dangeRuss said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Reminds me of a book I read where the process of obtaining a sufficiently detailed scan destroyed the biological brain.
-
@PleegWat How else could you obtain microslices?
-
@Carnage said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@LaoC said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@Zecc said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@dangeRuss said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
For those of us who don't C++, the difference is between passing by reference and passing by value.
I don't see the problem since you pass either way. But I doubt some people have anything that could be called a "conscience" nor any values to begin with.
Well, when most people want immortality, they want to avoid death. Making a copy that behaves like you isn't immortality in the way they want it. Even if it's a perfect copy of you that even acts, thinks and feels like you, it's still not you. You will still die.
By reference doesn't make a copy, it just references the original in a new context. And as the image says, this isn't what's gonna happen.That's why in "Upload" they immediately destroy the brain after uploading
-
@dangeRuss said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@Carnage said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@LaoC said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@Zecc said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@dangeRuss said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
For those of us who don't C++, the difference is between passing by reference and passing by value.
I don't see the problem since you pass either way. But I doubt some people have anything that could be called a "conscience" nor any values to begin with.
Well, when most people want immortality, they want to avoid death. Making a copy that behaves like you isn't immortality in the way they want it. Even if it's a perfect copy of you that even acts, thinks and feels like you, it's still not you. You will still die.
By reference doesn't make a copy, it just references the original in a new context. And as the image says, this isn't what's gonna happen.That's why in "Upload" they immediately destroy the brain after uploading
One of the perils of allowing more than one copy to exist at a time is that as soon as you do, both have to be treated individually. Because of an accident with a cloning machine, we ended up with 578 billion Lintillas.
-
@Watson said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@dangeRuss said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@Carnage said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@LaoC said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@Zecc said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@dangeRuss said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
For those of us who don't C++, the difference is between passing by reference and passing by value.
I don't see the problem since you pass either way. But I doubt some people have anything that could be called a "conscience" nor any values to begin with.
Well, when most people want immortality, they want to avoid death. Making a copy that behaves like you isn't immortality in the way they want it. Even if it's a perfect copy of you that even acts, thinks and feels like you, it's still not you. You will still die.
By reference doesn't make a copy, it just references the original in a new context. And as the image says, this isn't what's gonna happen.That's why in "Upload" they immediately destroy the brain after uploading
One of the perils of allowing more than one copy to exist at a time is that as soon as you do, both have to be treated individually. Because of an accident with a cloning machine, we ended up with 578 billion Lintillas.
Funny you should say that, apparently in Upload they have backups
-
@dangeRuss said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@Watson said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@dangeRuss said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@Carnage said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@LaoC said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@Zecc said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@dangeRuss said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
For those of us who don't C++, the difference is between passing by reference and passing by value.
I don't see the problem since you pass either way. But I doubt some people have anything that could be called a "conscience" nor any values to begin with.
Well, when most people want immortality, they want to avoid death. Making a copy that behaves like you isn't immortality in the way they want it. Even if it's a perfect copy of you that even acts, thinks and feels like you, it's still not you. You will still die.
By reference doesn't make a copy, it just references the original in a new context. And as the image says, this isn't what's gonna happen.That's why in "Upload" they immediately destroy the brain after uploading
One of the perils of allowing more than one copy to exist at a time is that as soon as you do, both have to be treated individually. Because of an accident with a cloning machine, we ended up with 578 billion Lintillas.
Funny you should say that, apparently in Upload they have backups
In one of Greg Egan's stories (it might have been Diaspora) there's a throwaway mention of "hot shadows". Nothing about what they are supposed to be, but if you're physically moving sentient software from memory substrate A to memory substrate B, then you'll want to ensure that the copy at B is intact before deleting the copy at A. At that point you have an impromptu backup of the software, and as long as you don't actually need A to be cleared for storing something else, you might as well keep that shadow around just in case.
-
@dangeRuss said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@Watson said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@dangeRuss said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@Carnage said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@LaoC said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@Zecc said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@dangeRuss said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
For those of us who don't C++, the difference is between passing by reference and passing by value.
I don't see the problem since you pass either way. But I doubt some people have anything that could be called a "conscience" nor any values to begin with.
Well, when most people want immortality, they want to avoid death. Making a copy that behaves like you isn't immortality in the way they want it. Even if it's a perfect copy of you that even acts, thinks and feels like you, it's still not you. You will still die.
By reference doesn't make a copy, it just references the original in a new context. And as the image says, this isn't what's gonna happen.That's why in "Upload" they immediately destroy the brain after uploading
One of the perils of allowing more than one copy to exist at a time is that as soon as you do, both have to be treated individually. Because of an accident with a cloning machine, we ended up with 578 billion Lintillas.
Funny you should say that, apparently in Upload they have backups
I remember reading a story in which one of the major plot points was that people could make backups. If anything happened to the physical body, they could clone it and restore the most recent backup of the consciousness. Trouble was, if that backup wasn't recent, you could lose a lot of your life. The protagonist was an artist, one of the most popular artists in whatever region humans had settled (I think it was more than Earth, but I don't remember if it was more than just the Solar System). Creating backups was expensive, so only the wealthy could afford to keep their backups up to date.
She was murdered, and she was cloned and restored, but her most recent backup predated her fame or any of the art that made her famous. She had created them, but it wasn't her; she had no memory of any of it.
Spoiler
Incidentally, her murderer was an illegal copy of herself who wanted be the legitimate her. I don't remember how the copy came to be created, not her own doing, but once she existed, she had her complete (if out of date) consciousness and wanted to stay alive.
-
Seen on a marquee outside a veterinary clinic:
DOGS CAN'T RUN AN MRI
BUT CATSCAN
-
@Watson said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Nothing about what they are supposed to be, but if you're physical moving sentient software from memory substrate A to memory substrate B, then you'll want to ensure that the copy at B is intact before deleting the copy at A. At that point you have an impromptu backup of the software, and as long as you don't physically need A to be cleared for storing something else, you might as well keep that shadow around just in case.
There's a Star Trek:The Next Generation episode whose plot is pretty similar. Because of a teleporter malfunction (IIRC), they end up with two Rikers.
-
@Zerosquare said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
they end up with two Rikers.
-
@Zerosquare said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@Watson said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Nothing about what they are supposed to be, but if you're physical moving sentient software from memory substrate A to memory substrate B, then you'll want to ensure that the copy at B is intact before deleting the copy at A. At that point you have an impromptu backup of the software, and as long as you don't physically need A to be cleared for storing something else, you might as well keep that shadow around just in case.
There's a Star Trek:The Next Generation episode whose plot is pretty similar. Because of a teleporter malfunction (IIRC), they end up with two Rikers.
Yeah I'm pretty sure every series has to have one, it's like a requirement.
-
@Zecc said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@dangeRuss said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
For those of us who don't C++, the difference is between passing by reference and passing by value. Ie, the former passes the existing value, while the second one creates a new copy.
… and the function taking a reference probably makes a copy inside anyway, because it needs it to persist after the end of the function and it can't reliably know how long the reference will be valid.
… in this example, the original copy is only valid as long as the original body is alive, so the first function still has to make a copy anyway.
And it can't “move” it. For the second it can be moved into, as far as C++ even has a move (it does not).
@Carnage said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Even if it's a perfect copy of you that even acts, thinks and feels like you, it's still not you. You will still die.
That's the real question.
For one thing, we still have absolutely zero idea how the conscience relates to any externally observable effects. We can't tell when an “artificial intelligence” actually gets a first person experience and when it's just faking it. So we don't yet have a slightest idea how to tell whether your uploaded consciousness actually works in the intended way.
And then we of course don't have the idea which one is “you” either. Perhaps the bits that make up the consciousness can really be moved and assembled in the machine, like the Ship of Theseus. Perhaps leaving a mindless body behind, or perhaps the body will spring up a copy of the consciousness.
If the many worlds interpretation is correct, we are splitting to multiple copies of ourselves that then evolve independently, in their own timelines, all the time anyway.
-
@Zerosquare said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@Watson said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Nothing about what they are supposed to be, but if you're physical moving sentient software from memory substrate A to memory substrate B, then you'll want to ensure that the copy at B is intact before deleting the copy at A. At that point you have an impromptu backup of the software, and as long as you don't physically need A to be cleared for storing something else, you might as well keep that shadow around just in case.
There's a Star Trek:The Next Generation episode whose plot is pretty similar. Because of a teleporter malfunction (IIRC), they end up with two Rikers.
Of course it’s a transporter malfunction, damn thing’s buggier than Windows 2364.
There’s the time it split Kirk into his good and bad sides, the time it made a copy of Riker, the time there’s a snake monster living inside the transporter beam, other examples exist but to remember or look them up.
What’s worse is that they also use it inconsistently to fix situations. We have a case where a crew member starts aging rapidly, they somehow use a DNA sample before getting ill plus the transporter pattern the last time she beamed aboard to filter out the disease. If that’s the case why do you need such a functioning sickbay? Just pump them through the transporter to fix them.
Or the time Picard and friends get made young, the transporter fixes this. Never mind the fact that their memories are somehow retained.
-
@Arantor said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Just pump them through the transporter to fix them.
And then you have the ship's doctor who uses the transporter pattern buffer to store his terminally-ill daughter until he can figure out a cure.
-
@Watson said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@Arantor said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Just pump them through the transporter to fix them.
And then you have the ship's doctor who uses the transporter pattern buffer to store his terminally-ill daughter until he can figure out a cure.
That at least makes sense: there isn’t a pattern of her pre-illness to compare and base a fix on, if I remember correctly.
-
@Arantor said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
other examples exist
Voyager has Neelix and Tuvok get combined, I forget what the DS9 one was, but it cements my point LMAO.
Ah, many are enumerated here, in DS9 it was a time travel party.
-
@Tsaukpaetra something something
-
@Bulb said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
it needs it to persist after the end of the function and it can't reliably know how long the reference will be valid.
Dammit, too late to the party, you already spoiled my Rust joke!
-
-
@ixvedeusi said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@Bulb said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
it needs it to persist after the end of the function and it can't reliably know how long the reference will be valid.
Dammit, too late to the party, you already spoiled my Rust joke!
If the function knows the lifetime, but its whole point is to extend that lifetime, it has to copy—or move—the value anyway. Which leaves us back with the question whether the move is truly a move or a copy and death of the original anyway.
-
@Bulb or to cut this short: as most of these programming jokes go, the code doesn’t really fit with the joke to be made one way or the other.
-
@topspin said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@Bulb or to cut this short: as most of these programming jokes go, the code doesn’t really fit with the joke to be made one way or the other.
That’s never stopped any of us before. YMBNH.
-
@HardwareGeek said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
I remember reading a story in which one of the major plot points was that people could make backups. If anything happened to the physical body, they could clone it and restore the most recent backup of the consciousness.
-
-
-
-
@ixvedeusi said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@Bulb said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
it needs it to persist after the end of the function and it can't reliably know how long the reference will be valid.
Dammit, too late to the party, you already spoiled my Rust joke!
Sir, this is the Funny Stuff Thread.
-
@Carnage Rookie. Everyone knows the hub caps are fake!
-
-
@topspin When I don't have shoes on, I do often say "I don't have my feet on yet"
-
@dcon Doesn't that sort of thing have a special name as a figure of speech?