• 6 Posts
  • 1.04K Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 2nd, 2023

help-circle

  • Epicly long light novels are like that, too. Like in xianxia, they’re weak and looked down upon, but, due to [secret hidden ultra advantage], they advance quickly until they can defeat the bullies. Which brings them to a new tier of power where they’re weak and looked down upon, …

    Some series do a good job of expanding the scope of things so politics start playing a bigger role, and they interact with people multiple tiers above their power for more continuity/scope, and/or move to new worlds/environments with entirely new structures, etc.

    Others just do the same thing over and over again. Most do both, lol.

    I find I can’t binge the same thing for more than a few weeks before I need a “palate cleanser” series before going back.







  • 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!





  • blindsight@beehaw.orgtoCanada@lemmy.ca*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    Putting 2S at the front is part of Truth and Reconciliation, recognizing the intersectionality of being Indigenous and two-spirit and the importance of including Indigenous Knowledge across all systems of power.

    With all due respect, decrying their inclusion is racist and continues the perpetuation of colonialist systems of oppression.

    I say this coming from a position of immense privilege, as a white, cis male from fairly wealthy and educated non-immigrant parents.


  • Absolutely. STV is the dream system. Proportional representation but with fully local representatives.

    My favourite feature is that it holds politicians directly accountable to their constituents. If you don’t know much about politics, you can just vote by party, like regular ranked ballot. But if you know more, you can rank individual party members against each other in the same party. There are no “safe” seats party insiders can hold to assure being elected, keeping everyone accountable.

    MMP either has party lists (and its potential for corruption from seeking higher list rank from the party), or systematically over-represents areas with more fractured political views. MMP also can lead to more fracturing of parties, since you only need a very small percentage of votes to get 1 seat, instead of 20%+ (locally) to qualify for a seat in STV. We don’t need single-issue fringe parties holding the deciding vote(s) to get to a majority coalition government able to force a snap election at any time!