• 5 Posts
  • 657 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 2nd, 2023

help-circle
  • I’m a cis Canadian and I’m terrified for everyone in the US. Even the ignorant masses who viewed for him. Project 2025 is going to dismantle American democracy, and with a stuffed supreme court, there are no remaining impediments to reverse this for a generation, until it’s too entrenched to change. If the USA lasts that long.

    Literally wondering if an American civil war, or breaking apart into smaller countries, will be coming.

    Longer term, terrified what this will mean for anthropogenic climate change and the world my children will inherit. (A climate-science denier is going to be the PM of Canada this time next year, too, and many are already provincial premiers.)

    I didn’t think this was possible, tbh. I don’t understand how 51% of Americans can think the “grab-her-by-the-pussy” con artist is the best choice for president. He’s literally told them, repeatedly, what he’s going to do and they don’t care, don’t pay attention, or don’t believe him. I can’t even.

    I’m going to go bury my head in the sand. No more news for me for the next long while. This isn’t good for my health.


  • blindsight@beehaw.orgtoPolitics@beehaw.orgVote!
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    13 days ago

    Had a horrible wait on election day a few years ago; a hateful bigot was polling really close to the (effective, thoughtful, visible-minority) incumbent leading up to the election, and people turned up in droves. Broke records for number of votes cast in a municipal election.

    But waiting in line 3+ hours to vote, with 2 preschool kiddos with us? Never again. Never. Again.

    Early voting, every time. It’s the way.







  • Mood.

    I’m not going to pay $45 for any game. If I’d known about the “never on sale, price only goes up” model they were using, I might have bought it back when it was $20, but I’ll just never play it now and I’m okay with that. There are literally hundreds of amazing games I already own to play, and if I had 100+ hours to sink into a game like this (I don’t, post-kiddos—for now, anyway), then I’d strike the earth for some Dwarf Fortress !!!FUN!!!, which I know I’ll enjoy.

    Or maybe finally get around to beating Baldur’s Gate 1… (I never made it past the early game… BG3 I’ll get to in the 2040s at this rate, ha ha!)

    Aside from people who just want to play football/CoD/D4/whatever multilayer game, I don’t understand why anyone pays full price for games. I’m glad they do, mind, since they’re subsidizing the development costs mean games get made, and I get amazing games for cheap.

    As a recent example, I nabbed MH Rise for cheap recently, and bounced off it. I might try again later, but it didn’t grab me. So glad I didn’t pay more than $15 CAD for it!




  • I don’t know the specifics, but there are a few reasons why new proof methods for known results are interesting.

    First and foremost, every new proof is, in and of itself, a new mathematical discovery. This is how the field expands.

    More specifically, proofs that require fewer other results can often be generalized to other systems/branches of math where other proofs don’t work for some reason. Like, lots of math is based on the Riemann hypothesis, but it’s yet to be proven, so everything built on top of it is, essentially, a house of cards that could come tumbling down if it’s ever disproven. And, even if it’s not untrue, we can’t fully accept the results since they aren’t fully proven yet.

    I wonder about this one, though; someone else mentioned they used calculus, but many parts of trigonometric calculus use the Pythagorean Theorem somewhere in the proof chain. Which would then mean this proof is already using the existence of itself to prove itself. It passed peer review, though, so either my doubt is unfounded or someone else has previously proven the relevant results in calculus without using the Pythagorean Theorem… which is a great example of why proof using fewer assumptions being useful!








  • Nothing, as far as I can tell, but political opponents have been running attack ads and blaming him for everything that’s gone wrong in the local (and global, for that matter) economy for the last decade.

    I think he did amazingly well in the Trump presidency threading the needle of not giving in to Trump but also not antagonizing him, so Canada had limited personal vendettas and attacks from Trump.

    He’s very articulate and careful with his words, and his pauses to think carefully about wording are seen as a lack of confidence. And, granted, it does make him a less inspiring/exciting/dynamic speaker.

    Contrast that with Pierre Poilievre, the leader of the Cons, who’s not at all worried about offending minorities and is constantly telling people how Trudeau has ruined everything, is ruining everything, and will ruin everything, for exemple by letting in immigrants, allowing schools to support trans kids (provincially controlled, not in Trudeau’s jurisdiction), and for long medical waiting times (also provincial), etc. Literally everything.


  • … he claims there is no point producing proof because they wouldn’t be believed.

    He also dismisses any evidence created by others as untrustworthy.

    What a load of shit. It’s up to the person making the claim to provide evidence. People have claimed the opposite, and backed it up with “low-quality” evidence. Refusing it would be pretty easy, if it were true; get someone independent to verify in a pre-funded, blind trial.

    The only reason not to do this is because they know their product reduces framerate frequently enough to be a problem.