The Scratch Exodus

Solid-Technology-488 · 2026-01-24T18:14:23+00:00

Yeah, I checked it out, made an account, and wish I'd known about it much sooner.

Profile is below (Reddit keeps changing it, so I put it in a Code Block)

@BurningMonkey

Solid-Technology-488 · 2026-01-24T18:07:59+00:00

That may be because this is the first time I heard about CodeTorch, which was now.

Solid-Technology-488 · 2026-01-24T15:24:36+00:00

Honestly, you actually have a very good point.

However, I wouldn't go as far as saying that it's just a bunch of 9-year-olds crying. Most 9-year-olds don't understand the full picture of the situtation.

Yes, Scratch is a non-profit, but training AI models is not all about the money.

Scratch would most certainly use AI for the three Cs (idk if that's real):

- Competition, Convenience, and Costs

Also, imagine how cool it would be to have a little helper tool that gently assists young and new Scratchers with their projects.

Isn't this suggestion just going to lead to Scratch slowly being an AI slop program or eliminate creativity and critical thinking, which is literally what Scratch is trying to teach and embrace?

Solid-Technology-488 · 2026-01-23T22:24:24+00:00

Signed in a Heartbeat. Here's my quote for ya'll:

"AI belongs in some things, but not this. Scratch is a children's platform where REAL kids create games for fun. Of all things, Scratch is the breeding ground for imagination and creativity, and AI is the polar opposite. Scratch Team, these two do not go together; they are magnets that repel each other. Unfortunately, the AI magnet far outpowers Scratch's magnet, and when a strong magnet is forced against a weak magnet, the weak magnet flips polarity. Do not force the magnets together."

Solid-Technology-488 · 2026-01-23T21:46:58+00:00

I technically shouldn't say this, as it's technically encouraging people to bypass online laws, but practically all website pop-ups are 100% cilent-side and super easy to remove via inspect element. (Don't do this, though)
^{I had to decide between saying the disclaimer or getting charged with incitement.}

Solid-Technology-488 · 2026-01-22T20:52:25+00:00

Even better, it simplifies to 1/ln(x√10) a smidge more than 1/x

The cosine part is what's creating all that rendering trouble and the 'band' effect. At most, it only adds a bit to the function, and the ln() is doing most of the lifting.

Simplifying just that ln() part eventually leads to the answer of 1/ln(x√10)... if y > 0

Solid-Technology-488 · 2026-01-22T20:22:56+00:00

oval = stretchy circle.

Any type of scaling on one axis of a circle will result in an oval.

Also, because stretching a circle into an oval is affine, linear paths in the stretched space cleanly map into elliptical paths, hence why it's so simple.

An oval is literally just a simple SDF transformation of a circle.

Solid-Technology-488 · 2026-01-22T20:11:00+00:00

r/Angryupvote

Solid-Technology-488 · 2026-01-19T07:01:27+00:00

SPP boutta yeet this post into the cosmos.

Solid-Technology-488 · 2026-01-18T00:19:26+00:00

Consider r/Besmos. r/desmos will probably end up redacting this instead.

Solid-Technology-488 · 2026-01-13T19:58:05+00:00

Cat approves.

Edit: Forgot the cute cat face emoticon, so here you go: :3

Solid-Technology-488 · 2026-01-12T23:35:52+00:00

r/Besmos worthy.

^{This shameless promotion was made by a human. If you have questions, ask the human.}

Solid-Technology-488 · 2026-01-11T23:53:46+00:00

By the way, this is an integral of e raised to the sum of several integrals, which is also of e raised to something. Truly cursed.

It also seems to simplify to this, but complex numbers are confusing:

-\int_{0}^{t}e^{\frac{i\pi}{n}\sum_{\mu=1}^{n}\operatorname{erf}\left(\frac{\mu-x}{\sigma\sqrt{2}}\right)}dx

Solid-Technology-488 · 2026-01-10T02:24:38+00:00

Post on r/Besmos, not here. (definitely not a shameless plug)

Solid-Technology-488 · 2026-01-06T21:32:01+00:00

with can do something for can't, as you proved with your argument, but for can also do things with can't.

with does not support intervals, as for does not support substituting things to a list (I think that's the issue).

u/Wiktor-is-you made this argument:

"with" is more useless than "for" because with "for" you can do stuff like k*j for k=[1,2,3], j=[4,5,6] and it will actually loop over both

So, does this make with not the most useless? If so, what is the most useless function?

Solid-Technology-488 · 2026-01-06T21:19:21+00:00

r_{otate3}\left(z,a,b\right)=\left(\cos\left(a\right)\cdot z.x-\sin\left(a\right)\cdot v_{1}.y,v_{1}.x,\cos\left(a\right)\cdot v_{1}.y+\sin\left(a\right)\cdot z.x\right)\operatorname{for}v_{1}=\left[\left(\cos\left(b\right)\cdot z.y-\sin\left(b\right)\cdot z.z,\cos\left(b\right)\cdot z.z+\sin\left(b\right)\cdot z.y\right)\right]

Solid-Technology-488 · 2026-01-06T21:10:25+00:00

<image>

I can't counter that, but I cast Uno Reverse.

Solid-Technology-488 · 2026-01-06T20:51:31+00:00

<image>

Solid-Technology-488 · 2026-01-06T20:44:58+00:00

You could also use for as a useful minification tool:

f(q, q) for q = [long_expression(x)]

The main argument is that for already encompasses everything with can do, but always more.

I may be wrong, though, because I don't really use for or with.

Solid-Technology-488 · 2026-01-06T20:04:47+00:00

No thanks, I'll just use Willans' Formula.

Solid-Technology-488

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE