gandalf_der_12te

joined 2 years ago
[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

This is why your testes are “immune-privileged”, meaning your white blood cells are not allowed in there.

crazy. yeah it makes sense on second thought, i guess, like there's some fuckery with the immune system of the mother not entering a child in the womb or sth. yeah it makes sense that that applies for sperm too. then, i wonder, what keeps infections at bay?

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (3 children)

well, i live in central europe, and i've never seen cheese that's the same color as milk (on the inside, below the crust). it's mostly yellow or yellow-white.

because who on earth would want their baby to die in their sleep?

actually, this exact thought was really calming to me when i was a kid (yes, the song was sung to me too):

if i die, at least i die in my sleep, where i wouldn't really be aware of it anyways, so i don't have to care about it. it's like, every human has to die sometime, but at least it can be in your sleep. and there's nothing you can do about it either, so you don't have to worry about it.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

i think "wenn" is indeed translated as if, while "wann" is translated as when

or maybe people use the same word differently, i'm not sure

i don't see in the slightest how that is related to the post?

actually, you can even store pointers to nothing in memory. you just do:

void x;
void* x_ptr = &x;

then you can use it to invoke functions that take no arguments like this:

void open_texteditor (void editor_choice)
{
    // do nothing with the editor_choice because there is only one sensible editor
    open_nano(); 
    return void;
}
void favorite_texteditor;
void result = open_texteditor(favorite_texteditor);
print_error_on_bad_result(result);

(note that this is a joke comment)

yeah i'm guilty of it myself, i just posted politics article this morning, unfortunately. i guess i shouldn't have done it.

i didn't get it either lol

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 50 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (3 children)

In 1973, Mexican anthropologist Santiago Genovés set out to test a hypothesis. He had been struck by the connection between violence and sexuality in monkeys. “Most conflicts,” he noted, “are about sexual access to ovulating females.”

But would this apply to humans, too? To find out, Genovés asked a British boat builder to make a 12x7 metre raft called the Acali on which he planned to sail with 10 sexually attractive young people across the Atlantic from the Canary Islands to Mexico.

To spur conflict onboard, Genovés minimised opportunities for privacy.

The boat would have no engines and would sail towards the Caribbean, just in time for hurricane season. Genovés knew that the Acali was sailing into danger but thought science justified the risk. “I believe that in a dangerous situation people will act on their instincts and I will be able to study them.”

wild

He put women in charge, in part to reflect what he thought was growing gender equality. The raft was captained by Maria Björnstam and Edna Reves was ship doctor; men were given menial tasks. “I wonder if having women in power will lead to less violence or more,” mused Genovés. “Maybe men will become more frustrated when women are in charge, and try to take over power.”

Not that Genovés’ raft was an antidote to the patriarchy. With a Caribbean hurricane brewing, Maria, the experienced ship’s captain, recommended they pull into a port to sit out the storm. Genovés, fearing the ruin of his experiment if they did so, mutinied and took control of the raft.

oh the irony

But Genovés was symbolically castrated later, on the Atlantic crossing. A huge container ship bore down on the little raft and he panicked. Only Maria kept a cool head and organised flares to ward off the looming ship. After that, the guinea pigs turned on the scientist: Maria became captain again.

Overthrown, Genovés retreated below deck and collapsed into depression, made worse by news on the radio that his university wanted to be dissociated from the scandalous Sex Raft headlines. While lying there he started to cry for the first time since childhood and had an existential epiphany, writing: “Only one has shown any kind of aggression and that is me, a man trying to control everyone else, including himself.”


Was the Peace Project a failure? Fé argues it was a great success, even though the anthropologist couldn’t see it: “He was so focused on the violence and conflict, but he had it right in his hands. We started out as them and us and we became us.”

For Lindeen, it’s poignant that Fé praises the experiment. “If only [Genovés] had listened to why people were on the raft – Mary escaping an abusive husband, the racism Fé had suffered – he would have learned about the consequences of violence and how sometimes we can overcome it by overcoming our differences.”

yeah i guess genoves was so focused on the science, he forgot to look at the humans involved.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de -4 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Infinite growth is not sustainable and will lead to ruin fast.

infinite growth is not sustainable in a finite space, but if you develop spaceflight, you have literally infinite space available, so the argument falls flat.

i just wanted to add that addition. it's actually why spaceflight is pushed forward in america, because it enables growth without destroying the planet at the same time.

We need to fundamentally change our values to prioritize life over money.

while i agree with the sentiment, i want to point something out.

when you say it like this, somebody else will read it and say "aha, so instead of maximizing money, we have to maximize life, which implies forcing women to have babies. pro-birther confirmed." and that's probably not what you intended.

so i guess one could maybe modify your statement a bit to make it make more sense in some other people's eye.

 

I know that many people don't like complex or intransparent recommendation algorithms.

Currently, there are "subscribed", "local" and "all" categories (at least in the default lemmy web UI).

I would like to change this to include custom topics ("listings"). They are a custom way of choosing content (in case of Lemmy listings). In Lemmy, custom listings appear just like standard listings (API-wise), just that instead of "https://discuss.tchncs.de/?dataType=Post&listingType=Subscribed&sort=Active" you have "https: //discuss.tchncs.de/?dataType=Post&listingType=list:AAAA4865698@lemmy.world&sort=Active" or something.

Listings could either be lists of communities and other listings. Consider this simple text file to describe a listing for a memes-topic: (that contains 2 communities, everything on 1 domain, and another sub-listing)

c:memes@lemmy.world
c:memes@lemmy.ml
domain:memes.net
list:AAAA4865698@lemmy.world

Or they could take their data from an RSS stream or similar external source.

893
morphology-based phylogeny (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de to c/science_memes@mander.xyz
 
 

In regards to the recent Portland Naked Bike Ride. link

 

German wikipedia defines a biological species as a group where individuals can reproduce offspring with other members of the group, but not with individuals outside of the group.

First of all, to the best of my knowledge, proper sexual reproduction only happens with Eukaryotes. Then this means that no bacteria ever reproduce offspring with other individuals, and therefore each bacterium is its own species.

But that is a meaningless definition. If each bacterium is its own species, then the categorization into species becomes meaningless.

On top of that, bacteria have "pseudosexual" horizontal gene transfer (HGT) which allows them to exchange genetic material with any other bacterium (if the circumstances are right; if i understand this correctly). So all bacteria are in a single species if you look at it that way.

I understand that bacteria normally don't undergo HGT with all other bacteria because some might only open up at hot temperatures while others only open up in cold temperatures - thus creating a natural barrier. But it is also my understanding that while such barriers exist, they're not permanent and can be overcome in nature (without human intervention) for example due to certain virus infections and similar circumstances.

Long story short:

Wouldn't it make more sense to just consider that the concept of "species" only apples to eukaryotes and not to bacteria at all? Wouldn't that save all of us a headache? Maybe we should consider bacterial species to be less strict that eukaryotic species. Maybe we should describe bacteria by their individual features and give that group a name, instead of expecting that diverging lines of evolution cannot ever come together again.

 

Toxic masculinity is a global phenomenon, but nowhere is it more virulent than in this hypermodern, connected society. What can other countries learn from this ‘ground zero’ of misogyny?

 

It takes a lot of parts that come from different sources and also sensitivity to place every screw correctly. It might be very difficult for a purely robot-run society to reproduce the robots themselves successfully.

You might have a factory that creates trucks, but who creates the robots that work in the factory? They're a different type of robot, and if you have a factory to produce them too, who produces the robots that work at that factory? The issue might be very difficult, and even if it's possible, you probably would need a very large industrial system to successfully and reliable reproduce every type of robot.

Meanwhile (biological) living beings can reproduce themselves successfully, especially plants, given nothing but water, CO~2~, some sunlight and some mineralic fertilizer (which might already be present in the landscape). That ability to self-reproduce is amazing and might be what makes life special.


These thoughts are relevant because it might mean that robots can never really get rid of humanity, i.e. overthrow humanity's rule and kill all humans. At least a few will be needed forever to ensure the robots can be reproduced. So you have something like: Humans reproduce themselves and also produce machines, which then do most of the hard work in the world. Kinda like DNA produces proteins, which then does most of the biochemical work inside a cell.

 

I've been studying a bit of human history recently and as many of you have probably heard, the worldwide population count increased sharply in the last century or so. link

the world's population was between 250 million and 500 million throughout the entire medieval age (500 AD to 1500 AD), so i assumed 330 million people on average (which it was around 1000 AD). 330 million people for a thousand years makes 330 billion human-years.

In the time period since 1970, approximately 6 billion people lived on earth on average, so that makes 55 * 6 billion = 330 billion human-years.

so, roughly speaking, as many human-years happened since 1970 than in the entire medieval history.

that might do a part in explaining why technological and societal progress has been so fast in the last couple of decades.

 

I've been studying a bit of human history recently and as many of you have probably heard, the worldwide population count increased sharply in the last century or so. link

the world's population was between 250 million and 500 million throughout the entire medieval age (500 AD to 1500 AD), so i assumed 330 million people on average (which it was around 1000 AD). 330 million people for a thousand years makes 330 billion human-years.

In the time period since 1970, approximately 6 billion people lived on earth on average, so that makes 55 * 6 billion = 330 billion human-years.

so, roughly speaking, as many human-years happened since 1970 than in the entire medieval history.

that might do a part in explaining why technological and societal progress has been so fast in the last couple of decades.

208
free-range zucchini (discuss.tchncs.de)
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world
 

futurama s6e22

context is fry and leila (and bender) are going to a "local farmer's market"

-18
Futurama sucks (external-content.duckduckgo.com)
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de to c/unpopularopinion@lemmy.world
 

(I moved this post over from !mildlyinfuriating@lemmy.world because it fits better here)

I'm currently watching Futurama for the first time because i always kinda thought it was cool when i was younger.

I recognize now how much it sucks.

The major thing that annoys me is that it displays the world in the year 3000 as if people would still have to hold down a job to earn enough money to live. The idea of full-employment sickens me. In my mind, i exclusively do tedious things in the hope that some day, they won't ever have to be done again. Like software development. Linux only has to be written once. Once functional, it basically lasts forever, or at least close to (only minor modifications need to be made, like adaptations to a new protocol or sth).

The very idea that people will still have to work in the year 3000 is very repulsive. It shows that society hasn't matured enough yet. I hope this is not the future that we actually end up with.

view more: next ›