Sombyr

@Sombyr@lemmy.zip

Your local bi(polar) schizo fluffernutter.

Previous profile under the same name over at lemmy.one

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

Sombyr,

The joke I think is that she seriously underestimated the task. This is the moment where she’s realizing “Well, that didn’t work” while the mammoth is still processing that a tiny woman has apparently stabbed it and will presumably kill her in a second.

Sombyr,

True. I was just judging by the way Gary Larson tends to draw cave women vs cave men. Obviously, since this isn’t made by Garry Larson, they could very well have intended it to be a man or even gender neutral.

Sombyr,

I’m a reply instantly kind of person. Unless I was busy and forgot. Then I’m a reply never kind of person.

Sombyr,

It’s a weird gen Z thing. The original point of the “no one” meme was to make jokes about people responding to things nobody has ever said. Subverting the punchline is a way to increase humor because it’s not expected. Misusing the meme phrase entirely sets you up to think the meme is going in a direction you’re familiar with only to be a completely different meme, thus increasing the humor. However the “no one” meme has been used this way so often that misusing it became the default use of it instead. Now the humor from it comes from the opposite, in that it’s basically a universal buildup that works for any joke. More or less it’s a beat phrase that sets up a brief moment of suspense for the punchline, similar to how comics will have dialogueless beat panels to increase the humor of the punchline.

Gen Z grew up with this kind of humor, which is why they think it’s so much funnier than older people do. Equally, gen alpha will likely have completely different humor gen Z doesn’t understand.

Sombyr, (edited )

Put simply it isn’t a joke. It’s evolved to the point where it basically means “prepare yourself, a joke’s coming.”

It’s just a meme that got so overused that it doesn’t mean anything anymore.

Think of it like how 90% of knock knock jokes don’t need the setup of answering the door, it’s just a familiar setup. Why is a banana knocking on the door? Why does there need to be a door in the setup of interrupting cow? That’s what “no one” means to younger people. It’s a familiar way to set up the joke.

Edit: I forgot to mention, correct usage would be something like:

Nobody:
Me: A trillion lions could totally defeat the sun.

The joke being nobody asked, nobody cares, and I said it anyway.

Sombyr,

Feel free. The whole “no one” thing has gotten a bit annoying for me too, since the initial memes of it showed up well into my adulthood, well past when my sense of humor had already developed and mostly solidified. I suppose we’re all becoming old people shaking our fist at those darn kids we can’t understand. It’s just good to keep in mind they grew up in a different world with different jokes and games, so their humor is always gonna seem a little weird.

I prefer to embrace it and just use the memes even more wrong to make them cringe. I think that’s hilarious.

Does AI-generated art posted on lemmy bother you?

I find that i can spot AI Images fairly easily these days, especially the sort of fantastical tableaus that get posted to the various AI communities around lemmy. I’m tired of seeing them; it all looks the same to me. Was wondering if im being too sensitive, or if other people are similarly bored of the constant unimaginative...

Sombyr, (edited )

I don’t mind AI art at all as long as it’s not posted in any art of photo based communities (besides ones intended for AI art.)

When it comes to memes, I don’t even care if those are labeled as containing AI art. Memes are naturally derivative, so labeling it as AI art would be like linking the exact stock photo you used. Wouldn’t be mad if we did label them though. Just don’t want there to be a double standard.

Encountering AI art in photo communities is super annoying though. It’s increasingly common for people to submit obviously AI photos and that’s super annoying.

Sombyr,

Some parents are weird. I once got grounded because I left my room, forgot something, and went back in to get it. Wasn’t even going anywhere or doing anything important. Just randomly got yelled at and grounded.

Sombyr,

My dad was like that. I remember a moment where my dad couldn’t understand the solution to the Monty Hall problem, so I tried to explain it to him and instantly got yelled at and sent to my room for contradicting him.

Sombyr,

Are you coming onto me?

Ah, just kidding. In seriousness though, I’ve chosen not to have kids on account of being so mentally fucked up by my childhood that I don’t want to put a kid through having me as a parent.

Although luckily my dad did mellow out with age. He’d kinda also been equally fucked up by his own childhood and refused to seek help until I’d left, my mom left, and later my old sibling left, and I refused to speak with him anymore. Last year I got a massive, 4 page, single spaced apology from him for everything he’d done, so luckily things are looking up at least.

Sombyr,

I have this recurring thing where I notice things like this when I’m dreaming, and it causes me to wake up in the middle of the night. Except I didn’t wake up. I dreamt that I woke up. Then I often fall back asleep again. I don’t wake up until something’s strong enough to wake me up twice.

Except sometimes when my body really doesn’t want to be awake, I’ll wake up a second time, then a third, then a fourth, and it just goes on forever until I’ve really overslept.

Sombyr,

There’s also the fact that there are other potential incarnations of Kirby also wandering around the universe, except they’re evil. Also they seem to be able to kill omnipotent gods somehow. And potentially create them too. I think there was also something about Nova or whatever his name was being made by the same species Kirby is?
Which, because they’re all dead except Kirby and Metaknight implied that there’s something capable of killing them, too, that we’ve never seen.

Also Kirby probably never killed 0. It would seem he can’t die in fact. And he seems to be what happens when Kirby reincarnates as evil instead of good.
The final boss of Kirby Squeak Squad is implied to be an incarnation of 0. In Japan his name is even “Dark 0.”

Kirby lore is basically “Lovecraft for Kids” if you ask me. Way simpler than traditional cosmic horror, but it has the same elements.

Sombyr,

It is plain tbh. What makes it feel interesting is that it never explains 99% of the lore. You have to pick up on it through tiny little details in the game. Sometimes it’s more blatant, sometimes it’s super subtle.
Just reading up on it doesn’t give the same experience as “did the incarnation of the limitless void just turn into Kirby for a second there?”

Sombyr,

Just like every other week of my life, it was mostly good and I had a lot of fun, but just one bad thing happened and that’s all I clearly remember now.

This week I played games with my wife, we both made new friends, which we’ve been hoping for for a long time, went to an in game event and laughed our asses off about how crazy that got. It was really fun.

But then I got sick, severely injured my pinky toe and can’t walk, and had a minor argument with my wife because I woke her up to ask what to do about it, even though I knew what to do already and my anxiety just made me not trust myself.

I really hope the good parts are the parts that stick in my head, but that’s not usually how it goes with me.

Sombyr,

Slammed it into my solid wood coffee table in the dark because I wasn’t paying attention. Broke it, which is the second bone I’ve broken in my life. The first was the same toe, the same way.
The toe is cursed I think.

Sombyr,

I think you’re misunderstanding the math a bit here. Let me give an example.

If you took a list of all the natural numbers, and a list off all multiples of 100, then you’ll find they have a 1 to 1 correspondence.
Now you might think “Ok, that means if we add up all the multiples of 100, we’ll have a bigger infinity than if we add up all the natural numbers. See, because when we add 1 for natural numbers, we add 100 in the list of multiples of 100. The same goes for 2 and 200, 3 and 300, and so on.”
But then you’ll notice a problem. The list of natural numbers already contains every multiple of 100 within it. Therefore, the list of natural numbers should be bigger because you’re adding more numbers. So now paradoxically, both sets seem like they should be bigger than the other.

The only resolution to this paradox is that both sets are exactly equal. I’m not smart enough to give a full mathematical proof of that, but hopefully that at least clears it up a bit.

Adding up 100 dollar bills infinitely and adding up 1 dollar bills infinitely is functionally exactly the same as adding up the natural numbers and all the multiples of 100.

The only way to have a larger infinity that I know of us to be uncountably infinite, because it is impossible to have a 1 to 1 correspondence of a countably infinite set, and an uncountably infinite set.

Sombyr, (edited )

If you’re responding to the part about countable infinity and uncountable infinity, it’s a bit of a misnomer, but it is the proper term.

Countably infinite is when you can pick any number in the set and know what comes next.

Uncountably infinite is when it’s physically impossible to do that, such as with a set of all irrational numbers. You can pick any number you want, but it’s impossible to count what came before or after it because you could just make the decimal even more precise, infinitely.

The bizarre thing about this property is that even if you paired every number in a uncountably infinite set (such as a set of all irrational numbers) with a countably infinite set (such as a set of all natural numbers) then no matter how you paired them, you would always find a number from the uncountably infinite set you forgot. Infinitely many in fact.

It’s often demonstrated by drawing up a chart of all rational numbers, and pairing each with an irrational number. Even if you did it perfectly, you could change the first digit of the irrational number paired with one, change the second digit of the irrational number paired with two, and so on. Once you were done, you’d put all the new digits together in order, and now you have a new number that appears nowhere on your infinite list.
It’ll be at least one digit off from every single number you have, because you just went through and changed those digits.

Because of that property, uncountably infinite sets are often said to be larger than countably infinite sets. I suppose depending on your definition that’s true, but I think of it as just a different type of infinity.

Sombyr,

I agree. I’m just being a math nerd.

I was actually discussing this with my wife earlier and her position is that the 1 dollar bills are better because it’s tough to find somebody who’ll split a 100, and 100s don’t work in vending machines.

I thought the hundreds would be better because you could just deposit them in the bank and use your card, and banks often have limits on how many individual bills you can deposit at once, so hundreds are way better for that.

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