Comments

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

Breve, to memes in Mommy's Choice

Every time you need to pay someone who’s pro-life any amount of money, give them a nickle and tell them that if they put it in their bank account it will eventually grow to reach the amount of money you owe them, therefore you’ve just paid them in full. Easy.

Breve, to linux in What's your current favorite distro that isn't Arch, Debian or Fedora?

I’ve become a fan of KDE Neon. It’s based on Ubuntu LTS but with the the most up-to-date KDE release.

Breve, (edited ) to memes in EDIT: I THINK I STAND CORRECTED

Try thinking of it like this: If I have an infinite amount of feathers, I can balance a scale that has any number of bowling balls on it. Even if there was an infinite number of bowling balls on the other side, I could still balance it because I also have infinite feathers that I can keep adding until it balances. I don’t need MORE than infinite feathers just because there’s infinite bowling balls. In the same way if my scale had every rational number on one side I could add enough even numbers to the other side to make it balance, but if I had all the irrational numbers on one side of the scale then I would never have enough rational numbers to make it balance out even though they are also infinite.

Edit: I suppose the easiest explaination is that it’s already paradoxical to even talk about having an infinite number of objects in reality just like it would be paradoxical to talk about having a negative number of objects. Which weighs more, -5 feathers that weigh 1 gram each or -5 bowling balls that weigh 7000 grams each? Math tells us in this case that the feathers now weigh more than the bowling balls even though we have the same amount of each and each bowling ball weighs more than each feather. In reality we can’t have less than zero of either.

Breve, to memes in EDIT: I THINK I STAND CORRECTED

Fair, but there’s also a lot of businesses that don’t accept $100 bills which would make paying for smaller everyday things annoying, and realistically I don’t think any car dealership would want to deal with 2,750 $100 bills either. Besides, with infinite money you could hire people to count and move the money for you, if it’s $1 bills instead of $100 bills you simply hire 100 times as many people!

Breve, (edited ) to memes in EDIT: I THINK I STAND CORRECTED

Infinity aside, the growth rate of number of bills vs the value of those bills has nothing to do with the original scenario though. It’s like arguing that a kilogram of feathers weighs less than a kilogram of bowling balls because the scale goes up less for every feather I put on the scale compared to every bowling ball I put on the scale.

Edit: Though if you want to talk about how weird infinity really is, here are some fun facts for you:

  • There are just as many even numbers as rational numbers, even though all even numbers are rational but not all rational numbers are even. This is because both sets are countably infinite.
  • There are more irrational numbers than rational numbers. This is because even though both sets are infinite, the set of irrational numbers is uncountably infinite.
Breve, to privacy in Proton Mail CEO Calls New Address Verification Feature 'Blockchain in a Very Pure Form'

Yeah these issues are definitely not new, but replacing “I trust the people who sign/verify my keys” versus “I trust the blockchain” is not too far off. What rules are going to be in place for peers to validate entries to the blockchain and independently reach enough concensus to achieve true decentralization?

Breve, to privacy in Proton Mail CEO Calls New Address Verification Feature 'Blockchain in a Very Pure Form'

PGP solved this a long time ago, but it is difficult to make it user friendly enough for non-technical people to understand and adopt it.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • localhost
  • All magazines
  • Loading…
    Loading the web debug toolbar…
    Attempt #