Ephera @ Ephera @lemmy.ml Posts 89Comments 4,192Joined 5 yr. ago
how does clubhouse app work?
Since no one else responded so far, the last thing I remember about it is that it got overrun by conspiracy nuts. Don't know, if that's still the case or if it was just a local thing, but yeah.
Yeah, as I understand, in the terms of language design theory, it is technically still "manual memory management". But since you don't end up writing malloc() and free(), many refer to it as "semi-automatic" instead, which certainly feels more accurate.
Same. What we refer to as "centipedes" also looks a lot more like millipedes with less legs. So, their body is longer and the legs shorter.
I can buy these vegan yoghurts here in the shop, which look basically the same. It's not completely stupid, since the plastic inside is genuinely quite flimsy compared to what it's normally like, but every time it has me thinking, they could be selling these in reusable glass jars instead.
Like, that's not even a new concept. There is a non-vegan yoghurt brand that's being sold like that. But that's probably precisely why they don't do. You can't sell it as some revolutionary green thing, if it's always been done like that.
The thing is, everyone would agree that it's a strength, if the Debian-specific format was provided in addition to a format which runs on all Linux distros. When I'm not on Debian, I just don't get anything out of that...
Ja, ich denk's mir auch. Warum muss jetzt hier irgend so ein Sonderprogramm her, was alles mögliche an Bürokratie und unvorhergesehener Nebeneffekte mit sich zieht, anstatt dass man mehr Steuern erhebt und Leute einstellt/ausbildet, die die Themen dann Vollzeit angehen? Wenn's nicht durch unzureichendes Entgelt "finanziert" wird, sehe ich keinen Grund warum man das machen will.
Damn, seems you're right. For folks reading along: That's not how that word usually works in German, but I guess, it is how it works in German legalese...
Right, so you might want ask about this on !askscience@lemmy.world or such, as science-y folks tend to not be comfortable with what I'm about to say, but to the best of my knowledge, that's all just complete horseshit. Like, no, your understanding of the photograph is not somehow incorrect. It's just two halves of a photograph and because you know the first half, you know what's on the second half. The second half does not get changed by you looking at the first half. Nor does the entangled quantum get changed by you looking at the first quantum.
I think, a big part of this mass confusion is that at the size that quanta have, looking at them does actually change/move the quantum that you look at (not a potentially entangled one). This is not for crazy reasons, but because looking at them requires light, which is the equivalent of blasting them with photons, and photons are themselves quanta.
It's like if you had a dark room with a ball in it and you can only throw other balls into there to try to figure out where the first ball is. You need to hit the first ball, in order to have a chance of working out where it might be based on the angle that your thrown ball returns at. If you do hit the first ball, it will move. So, you only really know where it was at the time of impact. Quanta are not balls, but they do still interfere with each other when they get close to each other.
Entanglement in this analogy is that you've spun up two balls next to each other like cogwheels, so you know them to have the opposite (and equally strong) spin. Then you've released those into the dark room and start throwing other balls at them to try to work out their spin. If you hit one of the spinning balls, your thrown ball will come back out with a spin opposite to that and the spin of the ball that was hit will have reduced. In this moment, you know that the other spinning ball also has an opposite spin, because you originally spun the two balls like cogwheels. The other ball does not get changed by you measuring the first, but there's no way for you to know, because you have to measure it to find out, which means also throwing a ball at it and therefore changing it, too.
As far as I can tell, this is the other big part of where the confusion comes from. Because measuring necessarily also involves changing the thing and because it's actually impossible to disprove that the entangled quantum didn't get changed by us measuring the first, you get folks that follow a school of thought of things being non-deterministic. Of things only being set in stone once you measure them. There's lots of vested interest in things being non-deterministic for religious or moral reasons and there is no way to disprove it at the quantum level. These folks then propagate concepts like superposition and that when you open the box, you're the one that forces the cat to be killed. (Schrödinger was not one of them, by the way. The cat analogy was a critique of superposition as an idea.)
To my knowledge, there's no evidence for non-determinism (folks will sometimes argue with quantum fluctuation showing it, but it doesn't happen in complete isolation, so that disqualifies it in my opinion) and given that the rest of our reality seems to be perfectly deterministic, I think we should assume the quantum stuff to be like that, too, unless proven otherwise, but unfortunately not everyone goes along with that.
Yeah, Wikipedia tells me the longest word that was actually in use is Grundstücksverkehrsgenehmigungszuständigkeitsübertragungsverordnung. It was a decree from 2003 until 2007.
Basically:
- "Grundstück" is a plot of land.
- "Verkehr" is
traffic"trade" in this context. - "Genehmigung" is approval.
- "Zuständigkeit" is responsibility.
- "Übertragung" is transfer.
- "Verordnung" is decree.
So, it decreed that the responsibility of approving traffic on trade of private plots of land should be transferred (to a different government body).
Kann ich mir gar nicht vorstellen, dass eine CDU unter Leitung von Friedrich "Die Kleinen Paschas" Merz evtl. nicht differenziert über andersfarbige Menschen sprechen würde.
Really not sure an estimate for algorithmic complexity is the right way to specify this. 😅
But if your supposed input unit is days, then I guess, yeah, that kind of works out.
To me, it's more that I get a glimpse of the human behind the art, even or especially if they're shitty at drawing. That's why I also like memes which are thrown together haphazardly. If it's pixel-perfect imagery, I don't see much from that at all.
I believe, the joke is that it's actually uncooked, rather than OOP having used a solar cooker...
Fixing the important security issues, I see.
I really don't know about anthemic, but I think, it's gotta be this one for me: https://freemusicarchive.org/music/The_Kyoto_Connection/Kyoto_Soundscapes/4_Alone_in_the_station/
Used to take the train a lot and that's basically the theme song to my mind going on a little adventure while all the buzz is happening around me.
I've heard this explanation of it once from a physicist: Imagine you have a photograph. You rip that photograph in half. Now you put both halves into envelopes and mix them up. At this point, you don't know which half is in which envelope. Now you send one of the envelopes to Australia. You open your half. Because you see that you have the left half of the photograph, you gain instant knowledge that the right half is in Australia.
With quanta, you can for example have a subatomic particle which decays into two quanta and then you know those quanta to have certain similar properties. As Wikipedia puts it:
For instance, a spin-zero particle could decay into a pair of spin-1/2 particles. If there is no orbital angular momentum, the total spin angular momentum after this decay must be zero (by the conservation of angular momentum). Whenever the first particle is measured to be spin up on some axis, the other, when measured on the same axis, is always found to be spin down.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement#Meaning_of_entanglement
Yeah, if middle management micromanages you, that's likely because their boss makes them answer some uncomfortable questions, if anything goes wrong.
Wildly depends on the complexity of the feature. If it only takes 4 hours to implement, you might have good enough of an idea what needs to be done that you can estimate it with 1-hour-precision. That is, if you're only doing things that you've done in a similar form before.
If the feature takes two weeks to implement, there's so many steps involved in accomplishing that, that there's a high chance for one of the steps to explode in complexity. Then you might be working on it for six weeks.
But yeah, I also double any estimate that I'm feeling, because reality shows that that ends up being more accurate, since I likely won't have all complexity in mind, so in some sense my baseline assumed error is already 100%.
Well, I think your idea would be simpler, if we weren't talking about Java.
Pretty much everything is an object in Java. It's only logical that a type would also be an object and have associated fields.
Similarly, what you're thinking of as "reference types directly" doesn't make sense in Java, because it lacks many of the systems to make that actually usable like a type. What you get from .class is a Class object, which you can't stick into a generic type parameter, for example.
It basically uses reflection to give you e.g. the name of that type and you can also instantiate an object of that type, if no parameters need to be passed to the constructor function.
And then, yeah, I think for explaining that you merely get an object which roughly describes the type, the separate .class field is a good idea.
I think, the seagull that sits on the floating manatee is called Evelyn. But yeah, a bit confusing...