fkn @ fkn @lemmy.world

Posts

3

Comments

465

Joined

2 yr. ago

Moderating

---

I appreciate the vote of confidence but these have been demonstrated to be extremely inaccurate.

I think it's usually something of the following:

1. Reiterate the general topic with an intro into what the paragraph is going to be about specifically.
2. Expand on the topic, generally without an indication of personal opinion. Sometimes being overly wordy.
3. Few to no spelling, grammar or punctuation mistakes.
4. Some form of repetition is possible with a final point.
5. For "sensitive" topics there is usually a call to empathy at the end.

Interesting.

I don't know if that answers the question or not, but it's interesting to note.

If you didn't edit it then I must have transformed some things in my brain... I apologize.

I think math is a process. The discovery of math is at least. Consider the origin of the incompleteness theorem. Mathematicians (Hilbert primarily) sought to prove that math is purely a construction of interpreted symbols that was wholly self-contained (primarily that everything provable within math only requires math to prove). Godel later proved, using only math, that math is incomplete. That is to specifically say, that there are things in math that are true, that you cannot prove with math. This means that there are more true things in math than you can prove. Simultaneously Godel demonstrated that this is also true for everything outside of math.

Deep in this proof is this seemingly magical thing that proves that the process of science can't prove all true things... Because the process of science is math.

Edit: I just realized that they edited their post. Originally it said "empirical math". Now that it says "empirical measurements" my question is void.

That's not my question... Unless I am completely misunderstanding what is being said.

What does empirical math, specifically, have to do with simulation theory.

I'm not advocating for simulation theory here for what it's worth. I just don't understand what "empirical" math has to do with it. The statement that "empirical math needs to be demonstrated first" is just super weird to me.

I don't know what to do with it. It feels like it's claiming that all math is theoretical... Or that math is a tautology... Or that they think math is incapable of doing something that simulation theory posits or...

So, instead of guessing at some general conclusion of what they are talking about I asked.

All racism is bigotry, but not all bigotry is racism.

To say that Islam is a race is racist.

Insulting ideas isn't bigotry. Insulting all of the people who have those ideas, because of those ideas is bigotry not racism.

Making fun of any religion, including Islam, can be considered disrespectful and offensive to believers. It's important to treat all religions with sensitivity and respect to promote understanding and harmony among different communities. Keep in mind that cultural and religious differences should be approached with empathy and consideration for the feelings of others.

It's the sentence structure at the end... The call for empathy and the consideration of others feelings. Chatgpt is programmed to respond in this way on "controversial" topics.

Edit:

Also, to answer your question. Bless your heart. I am not trying to discredit anything. I am trying to figure out if it's a bot and if I need to ban it from the community and report it to the admins... Sweetheart, you know it's not nice to be so aggressive in your accusations right?

Prompt: "Is it racist to make fun of Islam."

Chatgpt:

Making fun of any religion, including Islam, can be considered disrespectful and offensive to believers. It's important to treat all religions with sensitivity and respect to promote understanding and harmony among different communities. Keep in mind that cultural and religious differences should be approached with empathy and consideration for the feelings of others.

What did that have to do with this?

Why does this sound like chatgpt generated it?

Edit: they edited their post. I withdraw my question.

Originally it said "empirical math" and I was confused.

I don't follow. What does empirical math have to do with it?

First past the post creates these razor thin margins. It's not organic. If we had a ranked choice required plurality then the margins would widen in most races and flip in others.

Perl, no wait you said without arcane syntax....

Below the 3.0 volt limit will reduce usable cycle count by 30-80% Everytime the cell drops that low. Charging over 4.1 will reduce usable cycle count as well.

Example # of usable cycles if you stop discharge at 3.2 and stop charging at 4.0 for modern lipos can be 5000-10000 cycles.

Charging to 4.3 every cycle (phone batteries are rated to 4.3 not 4.2... it's why they have the larger than expected wh capacity numbers) will reduce that to 500.

Discharge it to 2.5 and you will get 10-50 cycles.

For those who are just looking at the SD or their phones... Most devices report 0% at 3 or 3.1v and 100% at 4.3 or 4.2 volts... So basically discharging to 0% doesn't matter... It's the charging to 100% that matters to most people.

If you charge to 100% you will get about 500 charges (it doesn't matter what the % is you start at is... 90% -> 100% is the same one cycle as 20% -> 100%). That's about two years of use for most people before your battery starts to suffer and you will see noticable decrease in battery life.

If you charge to 70% you will get about 10 years before you will see a drop in battery life. 80% will get you about 6-8 years.

Please don't forget that over 115 people died, over 200 are still missing today and thousands and thousands are now homeless.

https://www.redcross.org/donate/donation.html/

First, urinating or burning any non-living thing is not disrespectful in its own right. Urinating on or burning many living things is also not disrespectful in its own right. The line about where burning living things is bad is different for everyone, but most people are fine with burning or urinating on live mosquitos for example.

The act of urinating on someone else's property might be disrespectful. But it is not disrespectful to the thing. It is disrespectful to the person.

If I buy a cross and urinate on it in my own home. That is not disrespectful to anyone. Some people might take offense, but only because they are disrespectful of me and my rights. If I urinate or burn my own things in private it is not disrespectful. There is no degrading of anyone.

If I do it in public there may be some form of disrespect. This meme for example is clearly disrespectful of Christian beliefs. Beliefs do not inherently deserve respect. People deserve respect. There is no minimal level of respect an idea deserves. People (and many other living things) do deserve respect.

Actually walking into a church and urinating on their private property, regardless of what it was, should be obviously morally incorrect because it violates other people's right to their own property and their own freedom to be left alone without interference in their private spaces.

One of the things you fail to understand is that the cathartic release of aggression in a safe community will actually lead to a less hostile mutually shared space (provided that the community doesn't lead to radicalization).

You may be worried that this kind of material will radicalize someone and that is the point of your post. The reason I didn't ban you outright is that this is a valid concern in general.

Recognizing the difference between what is morally acceptable in mutually shared spaces vs private spaces is a difficult thing for some people.

It is my hope that not one here would actually physically infringe on another person's right to freedom. But I am not about to ask people to refrain from sharing their rightfully righteous anger about the way that religious organizations infringe on atheists rights daily...

For the record, I disagree that this post, or the many others like it, are radicalization risks.

There is more. Go check the stickied post.

I love your you immediately got 4 replies proving your point. 🤣

You do know you need an account on the NSFW instances to see the stuff on them right?

Few