Time Cube is much older than AI bruh .

Here’s one for you: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Cube

Everytime he’s asked for any kind of reasoning or evidence he goes straight to victimhood and how “mainstream archeology” doesn’t want you to know the real truth.

…is it, though?

We should have never given physicists the alphabet.

Im assuming the spider is your landlord.

I don’t think they can. Once a centipede is of decent size I think it’s much stronger than the average house Spider. Australia notwithstanding.

Western countries employing Indian coders are generally looking for the cheapest coders they can find who speak passable English. All of that sounds like you got what you paid for.

Size really does matter for sites like this. Reddit still hosts many smaller subs for niche topics that often have limited toxicity. Lemmy can’t match it yet unfortunately.

I agree, and also the 1984 David Lynch Dune movie was the pinnacle of film making.

This amount is too small to possibly measure

What the fuck did you say to me you little bitch? I’m going to go get $300 million in funding to create a device so complex and so sensitive that a butterfly sneezing 30 miles away will fuck it up and then I’m going to directly measure the the acceleration of the earth as a result of the mass of that bowling ball. You fucked up, kiddo.

• Average metrologist, probably

Idk about the franchise but it’s an excellent movie.

If you’re in a neighborhing state you can just drive to Yellowstone over a weekend. It’s actually really beautiful and unique. I even got a selfie with a Bison but it was standing 25 ft behind me in the background, munching on grass or whatever. Literally thousands of people do this without issue as long as they don’t get too close and don’t fuck with the Bison. I will never understand people who want to fuck with 800 pound meat tanks.

You should watch Hell or High Water. It’s set in West Texas but the story has broader relevance and it’s a great film.

Allowing anyone to upload video and then serving it to anyone in the world, at no cost, is not a viable business model. There’s no competition because there’s no money to be made here.

If someone working in semiconductor manufacturing were to answer this question they would probably have to say “I make sand think” and just walk away.

Before 150 years ago a lot of our ancestors spent a lot of time staring at the night sky and imagining shit.

There’s various technicalities of how and where Beyesian statistics apply to the world but I really interpreted it as meaning “if the world is ending then it doesn’t matter and if not then I’m up $50”. The Beyesian is just ruthlessly practical.

Netflix’s model makes the individual business case for a specific show really complicated to make. What’s the marginal return on investment for a moderately successful show? If it’s not quite popular enough to get people to subscribe just for that show, then it’s basically a total loss (existing customers only are watching it, who were paying anyways). Looking at the financials of that one show in isolation, all they’ve got are costs with no revenue gain.

There is the broader argument to be made about how a show contributes to the overall catalog quality and how that ultimately drives subscriber growth, but this is a far more roundabout way of talking about value.

With a recurring fee model, it’s in the business’s interest to make you use their service less while still paying, because if you use it too much they lose money, and if they price it according to how the power users use it then it won’t be a competitive deal.

You know I never thought of streaming services this way, but you’re absolutely right. Any service running on a regular subscription model falls into the “gym business model” where the ideal customer is one who is paying but never showing up. That way, their operational costs stay constant while revenue goes up.