Bananas are ridiculously cheap even up here in Canada, and they aren’t grown anywhere near here. Yet a banana can grow, be harvested, be shipped, be stocked, and then be purchased by me for less than it’d cost to mail a letter across town. (Well, if I could buy a single banana maybe…or maybe that’s not the best...
First off, i live in Europe, so i honestly don’t know too much about politics in other parts of the world, other than what i sometimes see in the news. I hope my innocent question doesn’t trigger any nastiness....
I’m using the term to mean more or less the collectively agreed upon “identity” of a state. Not merely a single contiguous government (for the same reason you just bring up, people still consider France to be France even though the government has changed fundamentally many times over the years), but I’m not using it to just mean “nation” either, since were France to be completely conquered and annexed by a foreign power, the French nation, as in the group of people, would still exist, but the country would not, at least until such time as it could be recreated, or for a different reason, that one can have a national identity split between different states, or a state involving different such groups.
Which is why I only dabble in it as a hobby and don’t generally take commissions from people (that and my skills aren’t as good as I’d like to do that, but that’s another matter)
Hypothetically, isn’t there also a third option that one eventually gets to a base universe, but that base universe has existed for an infinite amount of time and has no beginning?
I don’t personally suspect that anyone could truly create a simulation of their own universe at all. You could absolutely simulate a universe, but simulating your own universe (presumably your own universe at a point in the past since that’s what context the simulation argument generally gets made in) would have to have some kind of deviation from the real universe, be it that not all of the universe is simulated, or it’s only simulated to a certain level of detail or “resolution” and any physics on a smaller scale is simplified, or time runs slower or something. Because if you can simulate a perfect copy of your universe, or a universe of equivalent complexity and speed, then you can build a computer in that simulation equivalent to the one running it, and since that simulated computer doesn’t use all the resources of it’s simulated universe presumably, you can build several of them and get more processing power than you started with, which makes no sense. And if every “layer” of simulation inheritly has dramatically less possible complexity to it than the layer above, you should eventually (and I suspect rather rapidly) reach a level where further nested simulations are not possible
I mean, the creator of a simulated universe isn’t omnipotent though, for two reasons: first, there are plenty of things that they cannot do in their own universe, being just some regular person there, but more importantly, there must be limits on what they can do in the simulation, because that simulation has to exist on a computer which presumably has finite hardware limitations. “Framerate” or equivalent won’t matter as much because time doesn’t have to pass at the same rate, but the computer still is only going to have so much storage and memory space, or whatever equivalent the technology involved uses, and so nothing that would exceed those limitations can be done in the sim.
Im an atheist myself, though I’ll agree, the universe having a beginning does not preclude the possibility that it was created by an intelligent entity of some kind, a simulation is one way this can occur, but not the only one. I dont think such a creator likely, but I cant rule the option out. However, I dont think that an entity like this is really deserving of the title of god, because a simulator (or someone who has some kind of weird tech to mess with spacetime such as to create a new physical universe artificially) is still just as fallible as any other limited entity inside their own universe. Conceivably, if someone discovered a way to cure aging or something within the next few decades, its not impossible tho probably very unlikely that you or I might someday see the technology to create such a simulated universe developed, but if I were to create one, that would not really change what I am at all, or give me limitless knowledge or make me deserving of worship. This might be because I was raised in a family mostly full of Christians and therefore interpret the word the way Abrahamic religions do, but I dont think I could really consider anything less than an actually Omnipotent, Omniscient and therefore limitless and infallible being to be a god, and as I also believe that omnipotence is a logically impossible and self-disproving concept, and therefore, that it cannot exist in any reality no matter what rules may govern it, I feel as certain as I can be of anything that no such thing exists.
It’s known that sneezing is a reflex to prevent dust or nose hairs or whatever from getting down into the lungs, but why do people and animals sometimes get hiccups? What function does that serve, and what causes them?...
I’ve vaguely heard of them but not really looked into what makes them different from any other conventional razor. I might consider trying one I suppose.
I’ve always used electric shavers, as I greatly prefer not having to deal with constantly buying replacement blades for the more traditional kind. I’ve had my suspicions that maybe the vibration has something to do with it, but I’ve no idea how it would do so.
Does it actually have to maintain physical integrity as a single structure? If it’s not got a vacuum chamber due to relying on the ambient vacuum, then each section of magnets need not physically touch, so the individual components need only use some of the energy from their power source to actively steer themselves into formation rather than rely on material strength to hold together.
Speed limits are a not a good analogy to language rules, partly because they are generally intentionally designed rather than a product of an evolutionary pattern, partly because there is a clear and accepted authority that sets and enforces them with actual penalty, and partly because the consequences for not having them are often deadly.
By contrast, there is no clear authority that “owns” a language and can enforce it’s rules. Some government or academic body might in some cases declare that it has that authority, but they don’t really have any ability to set more than guidelines for how people working for them or producing documents on their behalf must write. Unlike speed limits, which simply would stop existing in a meaningful sense if governments stopped existing, languages existed before any such “authorities” did and would continue to exist if those organizations ceased. As such, I’d argue that linguistic rules aren’t really rules at all in the normal sense, there’s no-one with actual accepted authority to create, repeal, impose or enforce them, they’re just guidelines, loose ones at that, that one should follow if one’s intent is to be understood by someone else using the same or sufficiently similar guidelines. If you understand what someone is saying, which in cases like “should of”, people calling it against the rules clearly do, then they have succeeded in that goal, so it cannot really be a failure at being literate.
I reject any notion that this will eventually overcomplicate language to the point of it being too difficult to learn or use, because ultimately, people are not born knowing it, they must all learn, so any language too complex to learn wont be learned and therefore won’t be used, and similarly, any language too complicated and unclear to be used to communicate, can’t be used, and so won’t be. The complexity of language is inherently self-limiting at a level that prevents it from becoming useless.
Or for a TLDR: we don’t have to change the rules to accommodate people breaking them, because there aren’t really any rules at all.
Would it be possible to make more? I don’t imagine one could manufacture something on the level of a modern EV battery without modern industrial equipment, but electric vehicles technically existed even at the point where cars were first getting invented, made by individual inventors and such, just with much lower speed and range. How useful a vehicle like that would be I’m not sure, but if there’s no easily obtainable oil around, maybe better than nothing?
Something I’ve wondered, whenever looking at this map, is what areas if any would be considered “uninhabitable” on the current earth. For instance, would places like the Sahara desert qualify, according to the scale they use, or do they imagine something worse, for the places marked as such? Mainly because, people do still live in places like the Sahara, even if not at great density, which implies them to not be completely uninhabitable so much as places where human habitation is more difficult than other places.
I mean like even if someone is for example criminal or scumbag they are still human and hoping for someone to die or make jokes of someone's loss of life isn't right. Or does someone think it is justified? I think it's morally wrong.
Honestly I do get why it got so much media attention. Media companies exist to make money, to do that they need to get people's attention. Submarines, especially civilian ones that go deep like this, are rare and unusual things, so this story, while of little practical consequence to most, is very good at getting people's interest.
What are some food items that cost less than what they "should"?
Bananas are ridiculously cheap even up here in Canada, and they aren’t grown anywhere near here. Yet a banana can grow, be harvested, be shipped, be stocked, and then be purchased by me for less than it’d cost to mail a letter across town. (Well, if I could buy a single banana maybe…or maybe that’s not the best...
US: No mention of other political parties, other than republicans and democrats?
First off, i live in Europe, so i honestly don’t know too much about politics in other parts of the world, other than what i sometimes see in the news. I hope my innocent question doesn’t trigger any nastiness....
TIL (startrek.website)
fun facts (lemmy.world)
Honestly (lemmy.today)
How to succeed as an artist (lemmy.ca)
Both beliefs are fine, but please realize the hypocrisy (sh.itjust.works)
Peace is too much effort. Suffer in silence. (startrek.website)
Do hiccups serve any actual useful biological function?
It’s known that sneezing is a reflex to prevent dust or nose hairs or whatever from getting down into the lungs, but why do people and animals sometimes get hiccups? What function does that serve, and what causes them?...
What's a sci-fi or fantasy book or series that you want to see adapted as a movie/television series?
I didn’t read this series when I was a kid, but I finally got around to reading Roger Zelazny’s Chronicles of Amber....
bro pls (mander.xyz)
Should of built a better foundation (lemmy.world)
Two ship-mascot cats being held while their ships are repaired, WW1, 1918 (lemmy.world)
I'd deserve it (startrek.website)
Are you prepared for the future? (lemmy.world)
deleted_by_author
deleted_by_moderator
Tokay Geckos Look Like Mini Dinosaurs (lemmy.world)
Reddit moment! (lemmy.world)
Source: @MrLovenstein
What do you think of people making memes/jokes about the recent Titan tragedy?
I mean like even if someone is for example criminal or scumbag they are still human and hoping for someone to die or make jokes of someone's loss of life isn't right. Or does someone think it is justified? I think it's morally wrong.