The whole thing is dumb if you accept a premise of “infinite monkeys”. An infinite number of monkeys will type the works of shakespeare immediately, because an infinite number of them will start with the very first key they hit and continue until the end. (So it’ll be complete exactly as fast as a monkey can type it, typing as fast as simianly possible, with no mistakes.) You don’t even need the infinite time.

It only becomes interesting if you look at the finite scenarios.

And BTW, the lifespan of the universe is finite due to the eventual decay of all matter, including the monkeys and the typewriters. There’s no infinite time.

Is it? If ChatGPT wrote your paper, why would citations of the work of Frankie Hawkes raise any red flags unless you happened to see this specific tweet? You’d just see ChatGPT filled in some research by someone you hadn’t heard of. Whatever, turn it in. Proofreading anything you turn in is obviously a good idea, but it’s not going to reveal that you fell into a trap here.

If you went so far as to learn who Frankie Hawkes is supposed to be, you’d probably find out he’s irrelevant to this course of study and doesn’t have any citeable works on the subject. But then, if you were doing that work, you aren’t using ChatGPT in the first place. And that goes well beyond “proofreading”.

This is exactly what it is. When everything you believe is made up, it’s easy to accidentally make up the wrong number and then believe that instead.

I have a very cynical reason. If you look at what most religions say about it (against), you have to wonder why they all agree on it and it seems to me that if you off yourself, you’re not supporting the team. When there weren’t many humans, you really needed a bunch of team players on your religion making more babies, and the dead ones can’t carry out your crusades.

Now we put capital above religion, but it’s the same thing: we need workers for our factories. We need babies to become workers for our factories. Dead people can’t make cars or babies.

deleted by creator

Knowledge is knowing the common definition of fruit doesn’t include tomato.

This feels like a case where botanical science should just have picked a different name. If you invalidate everything people think of as a berry and then tell them a dozen things that are clearly not berries are, in fact, berries, you’re just making the word berry meaningless.

Berry means a tiny, usually sweet, fruit-like growth from a plant. The kind that is usually picked in bunches. The kind that you use to make smoothies. That’s a berry.

Botany did us all a disservice by choosing the word “berry” to mean “a specific thing which invalidates everything you think is a berry.” Just call that plant structure something in Latin, ffs.

If you were the patient, you’d still be happy about that. If the surgeon is cheating the stats, but has already accepted you as a patient, then you have the highest chance of survival.

I would want them to let me choose the name.

deleted by creator

Admittedly the image quality is “this meme first appeared in a dirty magazine in 1986 and has been re-compressed twice a year since the internet was invented”, but there are falling lines above the cucumber, and a little puff of smoke where it hits the ground. It’s depicted as falling out of a tree.

A cucumber tree? Sir, this is a science community.

We’re censoring out the letters “wtf” now? Fucking seriously?

It made them nervous because someone might put parts of the original source into Wine. You can’t do that in a rewrite in a different language, it doesn’t even make sense. The thing the people in this screenshot are gloating about isn’t even relevant to this license.

This guy’s company is planning to build nuclear-powered datacenters btw. Check in with yourself on whether you think that’s a good power this responsible human being should have.

Thirded. Immich has no right to be as good as it is after such a short time. Completely took down my google photos, finally, and I still have face recognition, word search and automatic backup from my phone.

My favorite thing I’ve done with hass is put a color-changing light bulb by my front door. It’s connected to the weather forecast. I know what the weather will be at a glance without a website or going outside. (Where I live, it’s not always obvious when I’m gonna get rained on.)

• uptime kuma

there’s a way to tie it back to circles

Not necessarily circles, but conic sections. When you take a series of a fixed exponent over a variable x, and graph it, that graph is a parabola.

A parabola is a slice through a cone. Tada, pi appears.

Mostly it’s just CYA for google since cycling is more dangerous than driving (due to the people driving), so there’s more surface area for them to get sued.

But yeah

• turns and crossings that look safe on a map don’t have very much data on whether they’re actually safe, because google has a thousand times as much information about drivers than cyclists.
• google sometimes suggests routes that can’t be traversed, legally or at all, by a bike. Same reason.
• sometimes google suggests avoiding something a bike doesn’t actually have to worry about. This is actually the category of error I see the most: google sends you around something when you could simply walk your bike through it, or ride through it, because you’re not a car.