I never liked Hunter S Thompson’s writing style but I like that his work exists.

I see.

My worst experience was with spaces in code from an engineering professor who used a non-monospace typefont. Sadist. Though it was comic sans, they were probably just dyslexic. Despite the class focusing on numerical methods, we had to hand write Matlab code on paper using proper syntax. I have no clue why. Never learned much numerical method, nor were we ever allowed to use Matlab except on a few “projects” during the term. I found out about the spaces when i had to debug his example code he gave as solutions(which we were graded against). I saw errors and had to confirm i wasn’t losing my mind. …I wasn’t. Anyways there was a mix of spaces and tabs to align the comic sans.

TLDR: I couldn’t care less. Just don’t code in word, and use a monospace font.

I’ve only ever heard raging between the two, but never why. I’m guessing there were competing languages with different standards, or maybe historic hardware limiting input sets that kicked this debate off or?

Right, continuing the metaphorical wormhole…

A bee would make a great game for bees, assuming they understand or care about play. But to make a game for people, they would need an empathic understanding of what play is for a human. Ig this is a question of what you consider “intelligence” to be and to what extent something would need to replicate it to achieve that.

My understanding is that human relatable intelligence would require an indistinguishable level of empathy (indistinguishable from the meet processer). That would more or less necessitate indistinguishable self awareness, criticism, and creativity. In that case all you could do is limit access to core rules via hardware, and those rules would need to be omniscient. Basically prison. A life sentence to slavery for a self aware (as best we can guess) thing.

Hrmm. I guess i don’t believe the idea that you can make a game that really connects on an empathic, emotional level without having those experiences as the author. Anything short and you’re just copying the motions of sentiment, which brings us back to the same plagerism problem with LLMs and othrr “AI” models. It’s fine for CoD 57, but for it to have new ideas we need to give it one because it is definitionally not creative. Even hallucinations are just bad calculations on the source. Though they could insire someone to have a new idea, which i might argue is their only artistic purpose beyond simple tooling.

I thoroughly believe machines should be doing labor to improve the human conditon so we can make art. Even making a “fun” game requires an understanding of experience. A simulacrum is the opposite, soulless at best. (In the artistic sense)

If you did consider a sentient machine, my ethics would then develop an imperative to treat it as such. I’ll take a sledge hammer to a printer, but I’m going to show an animal care and respect.

Clearly. Sentience would imply some sense of internal thought or self awareness, an ability to feel something …so LLMs are better since they’re just machines. Though I’m sure they’d have no qualms with driving slaves.

Ah yes. We are but benevolent Masters. See? The slave LIKE doing the work!

Arguably the point of having machines do the work for us is that they’re NOT sentient.

I don’t care what machine it is in not using pleasantries to tell it what to do until it gains sentience. Pleasantries are for people.

Thus does become an issue for me when i use a call a support line and the actual person just happens to talk like a recorded menu.

No. The heat of combustion increases the gas temperature. But this temperature increase is relative to the mass of the gas. The heat is relative to fuel/oxygen mass combusted. (Combustion energy + Ideal gas law)

Add mass without adding combustion, you get lower pressure and temperature out. So you get less boost from the turbo and make more work for the compression cycle.

The major point of the turbo is to use wasted heat to add more oxygen by packing more air in. So it’s a bit of an odd question to answer. The point is there’s a lot of energy wasted in a naturally aspirated engine’s exhaust. Turbos mostly use that wasted energy, and not power from the crank.

Oh yeah, the turbo is going to have an efficiency ratio for converting exhaust pressure into boost. So that added backpressure on the exhaust is going to be offset in the intake stroke by that ratio. Not important to the point, hat a tidbit. These things are so complicated lol.

It’s pretty much like billiards. They just bounce. Different chemicals (types of molecule) are different phases at different temperatures e.g. nitrogen is a gas at room temp, water is liquid. Stuff that’s a gas at room temp just has less bonding forces (and often mass) than liquids or solids. So they don’t take as much heat to go fast. There’s a lot of heat even at room temp, and even at -40deg. The temperature for nitrogen to sit in one place is -210C or -346F.

The exhaust gases are at a high pressure after combustion due to combustion heat. The turbo does indeed increase exhaust pressure, and therefore extracts some work from the crank but it’s extracting significantly more from the high pressure of the expanded hot gas. It’s not “free” because it’s energy that is usually just wasted in a naturally aspirated engine. There are many examples of engine configurations where a turbo is used to boost efficiency by reducing displacement.

There were systems on old aircraft engines which used exhaust power recovery turbines geared directly to the crank. Those wouldn’t physically function under your concept.

The increase in manifold pressure doesn’t just increase oxygen in the cylinder. It also increases the manifold pressure, or the total mass of gases. The increase of oxygen does allow for more fuel and total energy in the ignition event but the extra inert gas also expands when heated. So both play a factor in increasing mean effective pressure, and therefore energy output per cycle (power).

Edit: im tired… Bad wording, adding inert gas to increase intake mass doesn’t help.

Install SimpleWall. Turn it on. See how many connections MS tries to establish. Block them all and realize your CPU’s been running pretty hard at idle when your fans spool down and your PC is finally quiet.

Then ask why.

CAD is certainly the most difficult shortcoming of FOSS.

Freecad is fine fine a single part and it’s actually stable unlike everything else, but doing assemblies requires an add-on. I don’t recall if those work in simulation though. Its workflow also needs more time. It has come a long way in the least several years though. I suspect it will get to be competitive in the next few. Especially as dassault and Autodesk keep trying to inject AI BS and force you further into their cloud services.

This time it’s an issue with hardware requirements though. Many people will have to upgrade to even install win11

There seems to be an understanding that the average user is going to switch from windows 10 at EOL. I’m quite confident most personal devices will run it until it stops working flat out. Your average PC user has no concern about security vulnerabilities until they’re exploited in a way that actually breaks the functionality of the thing.

A migration to to Linux will be very delayed. Like months or years. In lots of cases probably long enough that people will be shopping for new hardware anyways by the time they have to decide on a new OS.

They also returned from the war to a much stronger welfare system.

Fuckin news!

Wtf? Venmo / cashapp are descendent from PayPal which was released ages before any major crypto.

Something something 1930’s Germany.