trustnoone

trustnoone, 6 months ago

This is a newb talking so take it with a grain of salt but

1. From initial videos it looks like when you pull out then put the cart back in, it seems to swap between games. So guess is that for the switch it looks like a normal game, not an initial boot interface to swap between, but what boots depends on which one the cart is chosen in the loop.
2. You’re right it would be their own type, and likely a converter between them assuming the team doesn’t put some sort of proprietary stopper
3. Likely the switch itself won’t know the difference, but Nintendo has dealt with this problem in the past with the 3ds. They add a unique code to every game, so when you pirate it and try to download and update Nintendo can see 1000s of downloads of the same game with unique key, then they can just ban the console. Same if you try to play online (then later patching happened where you can change the key yourself). Downloadable updates where available then afaik

trustnoone, 6 months ago

Is IBM and Intel the same company?

trustnoone, 6 months ago

Thanks, I always get confused on their relationship.

trustnoone, 7 months ago

What’s a protogen?

trustnoone, 7 months ago

There is one thing particularly interesting, and that is that the inverse square laws appears again. It appears in the electrical laws for instance.

That is electricity also exerts forces inverse to the square of distance with charges. One thinks perhaps inverse square distance has some deep significance, maybe gravity and electricity are different aspects of the same thing

…

Today our theory of physics, laws of physics are a multitude of different parts and pieces that don’t fit together very well. We don’t understand the one in terms of the other. We don’t have one structure that it’s all deduced we have several pieces that don’t quite fit yet.

And that’s the reason in these lectures instead of telling you what the law of physics is I talk about the things that’s common in the various laws because we don’t understand the connection between them.

But what’s very strange is that there is certain things that’s the same in both

Richard Feynman and 45:48 youtu.be/-kFOXP026eE?si=hAIvDhWVGxMOvEi1

trustnoone, 8 months ago

I was so shocked at how good it was, I only watched it recently and thought it’s probably some old religious movie. But dayumn I loved it, and can totally see why Keanu said he’d love to see a sequel.

trustnoone, 8 months ago

Eh I don’t think we’re obsessed with it, it’s more just like the likely outcome due to human nature. Largely pushed by:

• greed
• differences
• And only asking “could we” and not “should we”

trustnoone, 8 months ago

You were the first to purchase WinRAR

trustnoone, 8 months ago

There’s a lot of different views, many with some truths to it. I’ll try to give an answer but please take into account my answer is quite bias too.

The question, unlike the title of the article, the actual vote is on

whether the Constitution should be changed to include a recognition of the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

The problem is, how exactly or what exactly is an Aboriginal/Torres strait Islander voice. It’s not like Australia is voting to not give these groups voting rights like many articles seem to suggest.

It’s about what does this voice mean, do they have the power over government, can they stop laws, does it even help, whose even in it?

And there is no answer real answer, most answers I see are “it’s about creating a voice” or “we want to see Aus support before putting into action” etc (this may have changed later but that was the initial info I was getting), so you basically asked the Australian people to vote into changing the consitution on a potential something? Which for many feels like a permanent change or an unknown thing.

So all the no side had to do was be like “oh if you don’t know, then best to err on the safe side and vote no”. “Who knows what this could do”. “You can always wait and change it later”.

Imo the votes would have been very different if it instead just asked “would you like to see an Aboriginal / Torres strait Islander voice in government” and not touched the constitution. Or if they just made the voice/team/group and showed Aus how helpful it was before asking them to change the consitution.

And (I’m prob showing more bias here) if the yes side didn’t just call everyone racist who looked at the no vote (which I believe many are swing voters), it couldve provided enough time/listening to make changes to the argument that would change the voters. For example if they made it clear that it would just be used to support better decision making and help understanding etc. Though I can’t be too harsh when many of the no side arguments felt objectively like lies.

trustnoone, 8 months ago

Lol That’s awesome, less of a workaround and more of a “we fixed it already, but whatever you’re using probably hasn’t caught up yet”.

trustnoone, 9 months ago

Yes, that’s why we should always call it out in all forms about how any person of authority can extort people and the importance in ensuring it doesn’t happen.