Hello Wildcats!!

Weber Cooks

Fucking love those. Absolutely required for a “Pee-Off in the Trough” competition. One idiot bar put up dividers and I’m still mad.

I love you too, Pepsi.

Yes. All of them.

From a shareholder position, it’s just as bad to simply not be going up enough.

Can you buy puts that expire 2 years out?

I like the hospital analogy. I was picturing it like selling your car for gas money but I like yours better.

This kinda reminds me of when Beavis and Butthead first came on the air. Panned as the stupidest thing on TV.

When it came back in the 2010s, it was exactly as stupid. However, relative to what ELSE was on TV? Suddenly it was relatively high brow. It was easily the smartest show on MTV. By a LOT.

Putting super Gover in the first Iron Man? Nonsense. Putting him in whatever they do next? IMO it would generally raise the bar. No offense, MCU superfans.

That’s another great point. People do seem pretty comfortable speaking about their species as a whole in Star Trek, not just Klingons.

That’s fair. Humans have diverse cultures.

That being said, especially in matters of after death beliefs, humans won’t say “humans believe…”, they’ll add specificity by saying “Catholics believe”, or drop the universal quantifier of “humans” and just say “I/we” leaving the exact contextual bounds ambiguous in the case of “we”.

At least in the Star Trek I’ve seen, Klingons are pretty fucking happy to say it’s the KLINGON way. The KLINGON belief. The KLINGON tradition. Pretty explicitly setting the bounds.

Entirely possible that every subculture is so enamoured with themselves that they really don’t consider other Klingon cultures “true Klingons”. So that’s an explanation.

But even with that, we even see Worf, the same singular Klingon, giving IMO two contradictory versions. Although as another has said, he might have just made one up to be a comfort to a friend.

That, that’s the “little different”.

It does SOMETHING that has SOME value to SOME people.

even the “rapid prototyping” I hear about doesn’t really work very well in the context I work in (terrible legacy behemoth). I can see how it could maybe greenfield better.

I actually do anticipate these tools will improve. But that they’ll look more like existing and expanded high-end ide generation features then whatever the fuck the CEO thinks it’s going to be. And the CEO is already nickle-and-diming licences for much more basic and critical dev tools.

I just don’t see a real stomach for tool buys because it already isn’t there. We already have a wishlist of practical tools which would concretely improve productivity that they won’t buy us. Once investors realize this AI isn’t a fucking “I Robot” sitting in the office typing on a computer not asking for a holiday or saying “no” to weird sexual advances… I think appetite is going to dry up on their end, which will cascade to CEOs such that they can cut out the chest beating dick measuring theatrics. Because that’s who the show is for.

Different company, but…

We were pressured to figure out how to incorporate blockchain technology.

I shit you not, we were pressured to figure out how to engage with customers in the metaverse.

Always accompanied by a message like this. Straight from the CEO. If we can’t share the vision we don’t belong.

This LLM hype feels a LITTLE different, but not much.

Oh yeah, the yell+trash bit is internally consistent. Just the trash vs something worth guarding vs worth permanently enshrining.

But honestly that pet theory of yours is probably the simplest way to reconcile DS9. Then let discovery just have its Klingon reinvention and let it be it’s own thing and baby, you got a stew goin’

Klingon death lore isn’t very consistent. In TNG they yell to warn the afterlife that a warrior is approaching… And then say the body is trash. Throw it out the airlock. All Frank Reynolds.

Then in DS9 Worf is standing some silent vigil over someone who died saying it’s what Klingons do.

Then we have discovery where they build giant ass ships for the dead.

What am I missing

… Did they both involve sending weapons to Israel?

This is exactly my point. You’ve made it better than I ever could have.

The minute you buy into identity politics, you’ll reject what is front of your own eyes because you fail to seperate an issue from the whole. If “they” are wrong on the “issue”, then you’ll diminish the “issue” to protect the whole, thus protecting your identity.

Biden and the world and the current Democrats are absolutely fucked the dog on Israel. That doesn’t mean the Democrat turd sandwich isn’t still better than the giant douche, but there is no godly reason that one can’t evaluate issues honestly.

Note however gender has a second role, besides agreement: derivation

Interesting… I hadn’t considered that this might enable linguistic “shorthands”, is that the implication?

Sounds to me on the whole like you’re saying that the bitrate per syllable is solid and doing the heavy lifting here?

It’s super interesting; and the implications are actually huge.

I’d be interested in follow up studies to examine emergent linguistic patterns. Can we weigh syllabic encoding by common usage by age? If we eliminate “thouest” from the dictionary but include “skibidi” how does that skew patterns for informational density?

Science is so fucking cool and I’m stoked that people nerd out on shit that I’m an idiot about so I can learn about the nature of the world.

I agree there would be challenges around information selectively. I expect Runasimmi can speak more “quickly” “efficiently” about labour-based taxation in the form of terraced plateaus growing cocoa than Inuktitut, but would find itself in deep contrast in the opposite direction speaking of the ice flo route and the associated ice quality a polar bear took hunting a seal.

Also, just because a syllable “encodes more bits on average” does it imply faster transmission rate? Just because French encodes gender information into it’s language and syllables, isn’t knowing the gender of a shovel at best “check bits?” Used for detecting transmission errors but not intrinsically critical data?

I’m not a linguist. I’m barely a scientist. I’m fascinated by the assertion that it’s easy to establish “bits per second” on syllables having somehow abstracted away social context. I’m not saying you’re wrong or they’re wrong, just that this rubs my naive intuitions exactly the wrong way… Which speaks more to the quality of my intuitions (apparently quite bad) rather than the real science by people actually in the field.

If you want to take this one step further, it’s the the inevitable result of identity politics in general.

Once you decide to generalize away per-issue stances just to paint them “left or right”, “red or blue”, “my team your team” then it becomes trivial to make an argument that both sides are the same, or conversely that both sides are polar opposites. Whatever suits you.

Republicans and Democrats both shovelled weapons to Israel. They are thus, as a whole, identical. Indistinguishable. Republicans are erasing reproductive Rights. Democrats are trying to guarantee them. They are thus, as a whole, complete polar opposites.

Generalizing from the specific is a convenient mechanism, but error prone, and it leads to absolute trash discourse… Which in turn leads to a failure of consensus for specific demands to make during a protest.

“No Kings” isn’t realistically actionable.

The methodology sounds bizarrely complex to me for the purposes of establishing comparative information transfer rate.

Wouldn’t just timing how long it takes to communicate a controlled set of information answer that?

I’m confused by the concept of establishing an average “bitrate per syllable” and multiplying that through. Is this trying to address cases where language constructs DEMAND additional information be encoded in speech? Can one not construct a set of information intended to be communicated that could account for those quirks? Find some “lowest common denominator” sentences?

I feel like I’m missing something and I’m very curious about what my faulty assumption is

It really depends on what you’re optimising for.

By what mechanism does a group of people gathering to air grievances result in change, and by what mechanism is that change suppressed?

If the mechanism of suppression of the rally police intervention, then yes, this is the way.

I don’t think this is what is holding these rallies back, though. Vague and/or unrealistic demands coupled with certainty that they event is time-boxed, further coupled with the answer to “or else what?” Being “or we’ll quietly go home”.

“Remove Trump from the presidency” is a big ask, especially when all anyone has to do to get “through” the rally is wait a few hours.

Specific realistically actionable demands, with an answer to “or else what?” And providing a credible suggestion that “this isn’t going to blow over when we get tired and hungry” would make a far bigger impact than fragmenting locations IMO. But that’s just my take.

Release the Epstein files, subpoena FBI personnel who were supposedly told to redact Trump’s name, or else we’re staying in the streets and not going to work until it’s happened. This is a protest not a weekend BBQ.

That’s Wolverine.