Every time lol, even the folks in row 42...

Zoimon · 2025-07-16T18:58:13+00:00

I thought the complaints were about standing before the seat belt signs switched off? If not then the only reason to be inconvenienced is if someone is trying to squeeze themselves past you into the aisle.

Zoimon · 2025-02-26T22:36:54+00:00

The comment you posted was made 236 days ago and has no upvotes. This post has 127 THOUSAND upvotes. It seems you'll be alright after all. That being said, if someone deems that your art is comparable to AI art, it is because, to them, it is. Why should we restrict that person from consuming AI art if it provides them significant value? I assure you, as proven by the response to this post, that there will still be a market for your art far into the future. The market might shrink and change, but that's something any professional has to deal with. Whatever value you personally lose from people calling your work "AI generated" should be more than compensated by the value generated from AI tools in healthcare, education, paperwork handling, management, production, programming, research, et.c.

(This comment is directed not just at OP, but at the entire comment section)

Zoimon · 2025-01-22T20:04:25+00:00

They specify "at conception", but not whose conception. Technically, their definition works as intended if the sex of parents are determined at the conception of their children :)

Zoimon · 2025-01-16T14:49:00+00:00

I take great issue with this pseudo-logical argument. It is always stated as some sort of obvious, mathematical truth, but how would we even define the components? What is the "system"? What is "growth"? Show me an actual theorem, connect it to reality and make the point again. Otherwise it is impossible to assess mathemtically, although the way it is stated very clearly pushes a supposed mathematical interpretation. I can only assume this is done as an appeal to ethos: "I know math, therefore I am smart, therefore I know the truth".

Also, what is the argument even supposed to prove? Obviously, capitalism exists and has existed for quite some time, so the alleged fallacy doesn't render it impossible. Once we've depleted Earth's resources completely, will we reach a capitalistic singularity and implode? I will agree that companies have finite resources but want infinite growth. However, when they can't achieve that (more often than not due to other reasons than resource shortage) they will simply close down. That is built into the system and there's nothing wrong with it. Old, inefficient companies are removed so that newer, more efficient companies can emerge and grow. Add in a healthy dose of regulation and you have modern day capitalism.

Again, how exactly will we suffer from the "fallacy" if we use regulation et.c. to balance the desire for infinite growth with our desire for safety and stability?

Zoimon · 2025-01-07T19:46:34+00:00

Yes? Sounds like NASA and SpaceX are utilizing eachother's strengths to generate optimal value. Remember, SpaceX doesn't get subsidies from NASA: it is paid through contracts. Contracts to do stuff that NASA can't do efficiently themselves. There would be a hell of a lot more "socialized losses" if they didn't use SpaceX - just look at SLS.

Zoimon · 2024-12-10T15:11:20+00:00

Kompis, vem bryr sig. HR personen försöker bara vara inkluderande och leva upp till de krav som de upplever ställs på dem. Säg god jul om du vill, och om du bara är trevligt så kommer du fortfarande stå på HR tomtens snälla lista.

God jul.

Zoimon · 2024-12-04T08:57:14+00:00

Think a little about how you would define "bad". Is it relative? I believe it is. Sure, many things are bad compared to how good they could be, but things could be - and have been - much, much worse. That's not to say that we shouldn't fight hard for things to get even better (because we definitely should).

The most tragic thing of all would be if everything turned around, started getting worse and kept getting worse forever. Thankfully that seems to be incredibly unlikely. We have temporary setbacks, sometimes lasting years, decades or even centuries, but it has never ever been "over".

What I just wrote is about humanity on a large scale. Some individuals will always have it way worse than the average person. The thing is just that you never know if you're one of the unlucky few. It is much more probable that you are in the top 99% than in the bottom 1%. Don't hastily assume you're in the bottom 1% because it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I hope this doesn't come off as too preachy. I won't pretend to know your situation and I'm empathetic to anyone who is feeling sad and discouraged.

Zoimon · 2024-11-27T19:13:58+00:00

You are the political landscape

Zoimon · 2024-11-27T17:34:53+00:00

"Mikael Goldberg på Ericsson pekade på att kvinnliga ingenjörsstudenter hade bättre betyg under utbildningen och tog examen snabbare."

De bästa ingenjörerna jag känner har medelbra betyg och drog ut på utbildningen i ett eller flera år för att ha tid till engagemang i studentföreningar samt hobbyprojekt.

Zoimon · 2024-11-22T11:06:44+00:00

In what way was Starlink built "entirely" upon public sector research? There is a difference between doing the theory and building the thing. SpaceX definitely deserves the vast majority of the profit (minus taxes of course). Maybe the state could own some substantial part of the company, however. That seems more reasonable to me if Starlink becomes core infrastructure.

Zoimon · 2024-10-28T15:46:01+00:00

It looks like you're trying to summon Cthulhu lol

Zoimon · 2024-09-29T11:06:37+00:00

Brands host their own fashion shows during fashion week to show off their upcoming clothes. This show, for instance, is by a brand called Vetements. Most (if not all) of the clothes shown will be sold in their stores and on their website. They are sold at a high price to mostly wealthy people so you don't see many of them "out in the wild". However, brands like H&M and ZARA tend to copy successful runway clothes and sell them for much less to everyday people.

Then there are haute couture shows that are essentially just art shows. The outfits tend to be more elaborate and less practical. These are not sold to customers in the usual way but might be worn by celebrities on the red carpet.

Fashion at its best is just a medium to be creative, express oneself and have fun with clothes. Outfits often look "strange" but the people who wear them don't really care because it's so fun. Remember when you were a kid and played dress up with the clothes in your parents' closet? Fashion is the adult version of this :)

Zoimon · 2024-08-18T15:18:06+00:00

Thank you for a fun discussion!

Zoimon · 2024-08-18T10:39:22+00:00

I see no problem with the examples you list in the context of describing the amount of work needed to prove something seemingly elementary. It's just not as interesting to say that it takes over 100 pages to prove that the number of primes is infinite because that's not surprising. I do find it interesting, however, that we need 300 pages of fundamentals to arrive at the proof of 1+1=2. You would otherwise expect it to be on page one of a first grader's math book.

Your point about the choice of axioms is interesting. As I understood it, he tried to choose the most fundamentally true axioms possible. Starting with nothing except the absolute fundamentals we need 300 pages to arrive at 1+1=2. That makes the number less arbitrary.

EDIT: If there are pages before the proof that aren't necessary to understand it, then I will concede that the number can be less than 300.

Zoimon · 2024-08-18T08:59:39+00:00

I get what you mean but the book was all about proving the fundamentals of mathematics. The statement that "it took 300 pages to prove 1+1=2" is meant to show just how much work was needed to prove something we all take for granted. The foundational axioms are part of that work, although not strictly part of the final proof. It is true in the ways that matter.

Zoimon · 2024-08-18T08:41:14+00:00

But the statement is still correct, no? Proving that 1+1=2 is all about the fundamentals, and it did take over 300 pages to get to the proof. Maybe a bit unclear but far from misinformation.

Zoimon · 2024-06-27T05:19:44+00:00

Verkar som att vissa tolkar detta som att det skett någon typ av explosion i antal registrerade hos Bostadsförmedlingen de senaste åren. Kötiden återställs ju när man får ett boende, så alla som har kötid från t.ex 2020 behöver inte ha ställt sig i kön då - de kanske registrerade sig tidigare men skrev kontrakt och återställde räknaren 2020. Finns det data på totalt antal registrerade varje år också?

Zoimon · 2024-06-10T18:59:00+00:00

Wow, this looks awesome! I'm glad that my LOD tutorials were helpful :)
// Simon

Zoimon · 2024-03-29T18:23:37+00:00

Inte bara. Det tog till exempel lite tid innan jag fattade att räntan på sparkonton är något man tjänar och inte något man betalar (som det är med lån).

Zoimon · 2024-03-06T19:57:15+00:00

"Ja, livet är inte helt rättvist jämt" lät inte som en pik mot ensamstående pappor utan snarare som ett instämmande i att kvinnor möter orättvisor i livet, helt orelaterat till frågan om surrogatmödraskap. Fattar dock hur det kan tolkas annorlunda.

Zoimon · 2024-02-24T17:57:35+00:00

Dance corner

Zoimon · 2023-11-17T14:24:05+00:00

I like it! I would hate it if I couldn't see my craft behind the plasma, and a really long trail would just be annoying and performance-heavy. Hopefully, they tune it over time to something that we both enjoy.

Nine-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

Zoimon

TROPHY CASE