Destroyed by the Creator

When you design your whole project/house around the edgecase of it being easily climbable (as stairs) if it ever falls over at 45 degrees.

For this to be true, wouldn’t it have to be common to reshare porn?

oof…

You wouldn’t download… a BRAIN!!!

Knowing how it works is so much better than guessing around OpenAI’s censoring-out-the-censorship approach. I wonder if these kind of things can be teased out, enumerated, and then run as a specialization pass to nullify.

Which version of TempleOS?

What version of Docker do I need to run your container?

Spoiler: they all do

Choke? I know a fluxcapacitor when I see one!

I read someone saying the bandwidth is costly.

NaN ?

Obviously there is no number to quantify how many numbers there are, only a weaker concept of it being unbounded and limitless. null or undefined if you prefer.

Instead of “has infinite digits”, I prefer to say that it CANNOT be expressed as a base10/decimal number. If you choose a different base (base-pi for example), then it very much has finite digits… :)

Thank you for adding some facts to my vague conflated memories.

Does this mean the concept of infinity requires an infinite number of infinities?

A circle has one edge/side, that is grade-school geometry. There is no reason to engender confusion by trying to make it into a polygon or introducing infinity. Your model of shapes does not seem to account for curved edges.

Consider a stereotypical pizza slice. One might plainly say that it is a “like a triangle but one edge is curved” without falling into a philosophical abyss. :)

Or zero…

Furthermore, it is meant to highlight the fact that people gleefully embrace the concept of infinity, but try their hardest to avoid and depreciate the concept of imaginary numbers. It would appear to me that the bias ought to be reversed.

I recall hearing a quote from the guy that coined the term “imaginary number”, and how he regretted that term because it conveys a conceptualization of fiction. IIRC, he would rather that they would have been called “orthogonal numbers” (in a different plane) and said that they were far more real that people tend to hold in their mind. I think he said “they are as real as negative numbers” along the same lines of one not being able to hold a negative quantity of apples, for example.

The stray shower thought (beyond simply juxtaposing the discordant terms of ‘imaginary’ and ‘real’) was that infinity by contrast is a much weaker and fantastic concept. It destroys meaningful operations it comes into contact with, and requires invisible and growing workarounds to maintain (e.g. “countably” infinite vs “uncountably” infinite) which smells of fantasy, philosophically speaking.